Aruna Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 52653 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -195 Year- 2011 Thana -SHASTRINAGAR District- PATNA ====================================================== Aruna Devi Wife of Late Sunil Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Hardiya, P.S. Mehandiya, District - Arwal .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. D.P.Tiwari (App) Mr. N. Chatterjee ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

26-07-2016 Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Damodar Pd. Tiwari, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Nilanjan Chatterjee, learned counsel, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of informant. The petitioner, who is mother-in-law of the deceased has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 01-11-2013 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge 1st , Patna in Sessions Trial No. 576 of 2012 (arising out of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 195 of 2011) registered for the offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of petitioner under Section 227

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52653 of 2013 (2) dt.26-07-2016 2/2 of Cr.P.C. for her discharge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within 11 days from the marriage, the victim died and there was no external injury on the person of the deceased. Since marriage was solemnized only 11 days back, the petitioner only on suspicion has falsely been implicated in the case and as such, it has been prayed to quash the impugned order, whereas, learned counsel for the informant and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor have opposed the prayer of petitioner. It was argued that immediately within 11 days of the marriage, daughter of the informant was done to death by poisoning. This fact has come during investigation. Besides hearing, I have also perused the materials on record. After going through the same, the Court is satisfied that learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed no error in rejecting the discharge petition.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T