IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.11731 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -2143 Year- 2011 Thana -SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Singh Son Of Syambihari Singh Resident Of
Purwari Patli, Amanour, P.S.- Amanaur, District- Saran (Chhapra)
…. …. Petitioner
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Punam Devi Wife Of Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Singh, D/O Lalan Singh
Resident Of Village- Shekhpura, P.S.- Rivilganj, District- Saran (Chhapra).
…. …. Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
2. This criminal application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been
filed to quash the order dated 28.11.2012 passed by learned SDJM, Chapra in
Enquiry Case No.306 of 2012 whereunder the Magistrate finding prima-facie
petitioner and other co-accused. The petitioner is the husband of Opposite Party
No.2 against whom, it has been alleged that he and his family members, since the
date of marriage were demanding Hero Honda motorcycle and a colour television
as dowry. She was tortured and assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial house.
It has been further alleged that this petitioner married another lady, namely,
Kusum Devi on 15.05.2011. The matter was enquired and the Magistrate finding
prima-facie case for the offence in question ordered for issuance of summons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Opposite Party
No.2 is not willing to live with this petitioner and she voluntarily left the company
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11731 of 2014 dt.24-07-2017
of the petitioner in the month of October, 2008 and went to Kolkata. The
petitioner filed a Matrimonial Case no.93 of 2009 before Civil Judge, Balia for
restitution of Conjugal Right. The complainant Opposite Party No.2 in spite of
service of notice did not appear and the said case is pending for disposal. The
record and also barred also fit to be quashed under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C and
so the same is fit to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties opposed the
5. On perusal of complaint petition as well as impugned order, I find
that this petitioner is the husband of Opposite Party No.2. There is specific
allegation that he started demanding motorcycle and a television since the date of
marriage and on account of non-fulfilment of said demand, she was ousted from
the house. The complainant along with her three children are presently residing at
the place of her father. The complainant on solemn affirmation and other
witnesses during enquiry supported the allegation of torture and performing the
second marriage with a lady on 15.05.2011. The SDJM finding prima-facie case
for the offence under the aforesaid section has rightly summoned the petitioner.
6. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this
application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
Uploading Date 31.07.2017