Vishwanath Mahto vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 19 July, 2017

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11349 of 2014 dt.19-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11349 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -549 Year- 2010 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District-
SAMASTIPUR

1. Vishwanath Mahto Son Of Ramashish Mahto, Resident Of Village – Belsandi
Tara, P.S. – Bibhutipur, Dist. – Samastipur.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Brajmala Kumari Wife Of Vishwanath Mahto Resident Of Village – Belsandi
Tara, P.S. – Bibhutipur, Dist. – Samastipur

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gopal Tiwary
For the State : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 19-07-2017

This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashing the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by learned S.D.J.M.,

Samastipur in Complaint Case No. 549 of 2010 / Trial No. 1981 of

2011 whereunder the petitioner was summoned to face trial for the

offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, O.P. No.

2 and A.P.P. for the State.

3. The petitioner is husband of O.P. No. 2, who filed

complaint case on the file of C.JM, Samastipur alleging inter alia

that she was married with the petitioner on 05.07.2001 and from the

said wedlock, she got two sons. She has further alleged that since

August, 2007, her husband and in-laws started demanded Rs. one

lac and on refusal of the complainant, her husband and in-laws
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11349 of 2014 dt.19-07-2017

assaulted and after snatching her entire belongings ousted from

their house.

4. It has been submitted that the Magistrate had taken

cognizance against this petitioner and his family members. The

order taking cognizance was challenged before this Court by the

parents and other family members of the petitioner by filing

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5984 of 2014 which after hearing was

allowed on 19.08.2014 and cognizance with respect to four persons

was quashed. On perusal of record, I find that the complainant and

her witnesses at the time enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C have

supported the allegation of demand of money and torture against

the petitioner. The Magistrate finding prima facie case for the

offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. has rightly summoned the

petitioner to face the trial. The petitioner will have opportunity to

raise his defence at the time of trial.

5. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned

order amounting to abuse of process of the Court for interference in

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly,

this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar, J)
ajaypd./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.07.2017
Transmission 21.07.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *