IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a deceased's body does not negate the possibility of a dowry death; circumstantial evidence can establish the case.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Applicant No.1 got married with Manju Tiwari (daughter of the complainant) in 2014, whereas other applicants are relatives of applicant No.1. It is the case of applicants that on 23.09.2016 at about 9.00 p.m., Smt. Manju Tiwari ran away from their house and despite searched for days, she was not located. Applicants have lodged missing report as well as publications were made in newspaper also.

3. The complainant side was also making efforts along with applicants side to search her but all attempts were failed. In the aforesaid circumstances, complainant after about six weeks filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 11.01.2017, alleging that his daughter (wife of applicant No.1) died under otherwise than normal circumstances and her dead body was concealed by applicants. On order of learned Magistrate, an FIR was lodged on 25.11.2016 against applicants (Case Crime No.1203 of 2017) under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna, District- Kushinagar.

4. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses and made attempts to locate victim either alive or dead but she was not found alive nor her dead body was recovered. Investigation was not proper, therefore, a writ petition was filed before this Court by the complainant for referring investigation to CBI. The writ petition was remained pending and orders were passed against Police Officers.

5. Initially, a charge-sheet No.31 of 2017 was filed only under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna, by order dated 02.11.2017, returned the charge-sheet with direction to conduct investigation properly. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :-

6. It appears that Investigating Officer has submitted other charge-sheet also. Learned Magistrate has decided another protest petition by order dated 17.07.2018, whereby said charge-sheet was also returned for further investigation. Relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter :-

7. Meanwhile, applicants’ attempt to quash FIR was failed, whereas attempts of complainants for fair and further investigation remained successful.

8. The writ petition filed by the complainant got disposed of by order dated 24.02.2020. Relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter :-

"6. Today, an affidavit has been filed by Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'I.O.') stating therein that charge-sheet has been submitted by I.O before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar whereupon, Magistrate has taken cogniaznce and issued summons on 18.2.2020 to accused.

7. Learned counsel for accused respondent-5 submits that superficial investigation has been conducted and without collecting any credible evidence, charge-sheet has been submitted. If petitioner has any grievance regarding submission of charge-sheet, same can be raised before the Magistrate concerned at the time of framing of charge or by challenging order taking cognizance before Revisional Court.

8. Since charge-sheet has already been submitted and Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter, no further cause of action survives in present writ petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. Personal appearance of Mr. Vinod Kumar Mishra, Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar and Mr. Netesh Pratap Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer, Tamkuhiraj), District Kushi Nagar is dispensed with."

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, finally a charge-sheet was filed on 12.02.2020 i.e. after about 3 years on which cognizance was taken and applicants were summoned by order dated 05.03.2020.

10. The said charge-sheet, cognizance and summoning order were challenged by way of present application. Initially, this Court has granted an i