Saurav Kumar Narsaria vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 20.6.2011 passed in Bariatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No. 18 of 2010 (G.R. No. 259 of 2010) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner "submits that when the deceased fell down from 5th floor of the house, she died. In spite of that a case was lodged against the petitioner, husband of the deceased on the allegation that the petitioner had been demanding dowry and on account of its non-fulfillment, she was being subjected to torture and that the death is quite unnatural but the informant himself has admitted that death had occurred on account of fall from the 5th floor of the building which is evident from the fact that his signature appears to be there over the inquest report. Subsequently statement was made by the informant to the effect that death appears to be suspicious and that apart, allegation was also put in of subjection to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of dowry which get falsified from the fact that the petitioner and the deceased had gone for honeymoon and had remained away for four days, i.e. 11.1.2010 to 14.1.2010 whereas the occurrence took place on 16.1.2010. This fact alone goes to suggest that it is a simple case of accident and that most of the statements made by the witnesses which have been relied upon by the Magistrate for finding out prima facie case which is in favour of the petitioner and thereby the Magistrate cannot be said to be right in holding that prima facie case is there against the petitioner and that some of the paragraphs of the case diary upon which reliance has been placed do not have evidentiary value, rather in those paragraphs only suspicion has been raised.

Under the circumstances, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.

On perusal of the record, it does appear that on submission of the charge-sheet, the court has taken cognizance of the offence placing his reliance upon the statements of the witnesses recorded in the case diary. If those materials are sufficient to put the petitioner on trial or not can be raised at the time of discharge.

Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order taking cognizance and hence, this application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points which have been raised in this application at the time of discharge. Thus, this application stands disposed of.