Sunil Kumar Jha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 19 July, 2017

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12240 of 2014 dt.19-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12240 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -242 Year- 2007 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- SUPAUL

1. Sunil Kumar Jha, Son Of Bisheshnath Jha

2. Manoj Kumar Jha, Son Of Bisheshnath Jha

3. Kanchan Devi, Wife Of Manoj Kumar Jha

4. Bisheshnath Nath, Son Of Swarup Narain Jha
All Resident Of Village- Belasadi, P.S.- Srinagar Hat, District- Supaul
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Smt. Punam Devi @ Karpoori Devi, Wife Of Sunil Kumar Jha, Resident Of
Village- Belasadi, P.S.- Srinagar Hat, District- Supaul, At Present Residing At
Daharia, P.S.- Chhatapur, District- Supaul
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha

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 22.08.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,

Supaul in Complaint Case No. 242 of 2007 whereunder cognizance

under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. has been taken against the

petitioners.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The complainant (O.P. No. 2 before this Court) filed a

Complaint Case No. 242 of 2007 on the file of C.J.M., Supaul

alleging inter alia that she was married with petitioner no. 1 on

19.02.1988. The complainant came to matrimonial house in March,

1991, where her husband and in-laws started demanding Rs.

50,000/-. The said demand was not fulfilled on account of which her
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12240 of 2014 dt.19-07-2017

READ  Joint Women'S Programme vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1987

in-laws started torturing. She has further alleged that her Gotani,

namely, Kanchan Devi sprinkled kerosene oil on 09.05.2002 and

other co-accused lit fire. She sustained injury and was treated. The

complainant was compelled to leave the house and she came back at

the place of her brother on 10.04.2007.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

complainant is not legally married wife of the petitioner no. 1. The

family members of the complainant kidnapped the petitioner no. 1

for his marriage with the complainant for which the petitioner no. 4

lodged Saharsa P.S. No. 90 of 1988 on 23.02.1988. The matter was

investigated by the police and a charge-sheet was submitted against

the accused persons. The complainant never visited at their house

and so, the allegation of demand of money and assault is baseless.

The learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order without

applying judicial mind and so, the order is fit to be quashed. The

learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 opposed the

submission.

5. On perusal of complaint petition, impugned order and

annexures available on record, I find that the complainant has

alleged that she is legally married wife of petitioner no. 1. She has

alleged that after her marriage, she went to her sasural where she

was assaulted by her husband and in-laws. The complainant and her

witnesses have supported the allegation of assault by the husband
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12240 of 2014 dt.19-07-2017

and his family members on account of refusal to fulfill the demand

READ  Sh.Manoj Kumar & Others vs The State Of Delhi & Another on 1 September, 2008

of money. The magistrate on being satisfied with the material on

record took cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C

and summoned the petitioners. The petitioner no. 2 to 4 are brother

and parents of petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 4 has come with

different story that the complainant is not legally wife of the

petitioner no. 1. They have further denied any manner of concern

with the affairs of the complainant. The petitioner no. 4 asserts that

he is an old man aged about 80 years and has retired from the post of

head clerk from Murliganj, Block Office. He has filed a police case

vide Saharsa P.S. Case No. 90 of 1988 for kidnapping of his son.

Their defence for false implication can be taken at the time of trial.

6. In view of the above discussions, I find that the

Magistrate has rightly summoned the petitioners. As such, this

criminal miscellaneous application has got no merit and is

dismissed. The petitioners will be at liberty to raise his grievance at

the time of framing of charge which shall be considered on the merit

without being prejudiced by the order of the Court.

(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 *