Sunil Kumar Sah @ Sunil Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16832 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -174 Year- 2012 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR CITY District-
MUZAFFARPUR

1. Sunil Kumar Sah @ Sunil Kumar

2. Anil Sah @ Anil Kumar Sah @ Anil Kumar

3. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Sah
All are sons of late Chaturbhuj Sah, Resident of Village – Saraiyaganj, Nunphar,
Behind of Mega Bazar, P.S. – Muzaffarpur Town, Dist. – Muzaffarpur.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Tamanna Khatoon @ Sweta Devi, daughter of Md.Alam, r/o village Sadatpur
Kanti, P.S. Kanti, Distt. Muzaffarpur.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate.

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, A.P.P.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 14-07-2017

1. The petitioner has challenged the order of

cognizance dated 6.3.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, by which the learned Magistrate took

cognizance against the petitioners in connection with Muzaffarpur

Town P.S. Case No. 174 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 341,

323 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The informant has alleged that she was living with

petitioner No. 1 as husband and wife for the last three years and from

their wedlock, one girl child was born. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16832 of 2014 dt.14-07-2017

2/3

wanted to dissolve the relationship with her and performed another

marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 along with his other brother

Anil Sah and Deepak Kumar assaulted the informant and forcibly

ousted her from matrimonial home.

3. From the impugned order, it appears that police

after investigation found the case true and filed charge sheet against

all the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has on the basis of

allegation in the First Information Report and materials available in

the case diary, found sufficient material to take cognizance against the

petitioner for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 498A/34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

wife (informant) was live in relationship. She has been married with

another person which is apparent from Annexure-2.

5. It is settled law that learned Magistrate is not

required to see the defence of the petitioners at the time of taking

cognizance. The cognizance can be taken even if prima facie case is

made out against the accused persons.

6. In the instant case, the police after investigation

has found the case true and filed charge sheet against the petitioners.

Thereafter, the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate

on the basis of allegation in the written report and the materials
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16832 of 2014 dt.14-07-2017

3/3

available in the case diary.

7. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in

the order of cognizance.

8. This Criminal Miscellaneous application is

accordingly dismissed.

9. The petitioner is given liberty to raise all the points

as raised in this Criminal Miscellaneous application at the time of

framing of charge in the court below which shall be disposed off by

the court below in accordance with law without being prejudiced by

this order.

(Sanjay Priya, J)

S.Ali/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A
Uploading Date 21/07/2017
Transmission 21/07/2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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