Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 24 July, 2017

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-
SARAN

Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Singh Son Of Syambihari Singh Resident Of
Purwari Patli, Amanour, P.S.- Amanaur, District- Saran (Chhapra)

…. …. Petitioner
Versus

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

Appearance :

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
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 24-07-2017

Heard.

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

case for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 279 of the IPC summoned the

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.

READ  Abhishek Vinodkumar Verma vs State Of Gujarat & on 10 March, 2017

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

2/2

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

cognizance under Section 498A and 379 of the IPC is against the material on

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

submissions.

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

READ  Gulzar Begum-vs-Lok Adalat on 24 March, 2011

application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar, J)

B.Kr./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 31.07.2017
Transmission 31.07.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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