IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.34411 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -379 Year- 2011 Thana -JAHANABAD District- JEHANABAD
1. Ranjeet Kumar @ Babloo Son of Suresh Prasad ,
2. Suresh Prasad, son of Late Ramashray Singh
3. Saheba Devi Wife of Suresh Prasad
4. Vidya Bhusan Kumar @ Tuntun, Son of Suresh Prasad ,
5. Bigul Kumar @ Bimal Kumar , son of Akhilesh Yadav . All Resident of
Village – Mahdipur Police Station , Kako , District:- Jehanabad .
6. Vijay Kumar @ Munna Kumar , son of Radhakrishna Prasad @ Lallu Prasad .
Resident of Village :- Chandaura , Police Station , Kako , District:- Jehanabad .
…. …. Petitioners
1. The State of Bihar
2. Beauty Devi, Daughter of Uday Prasad Resident of village :- Chakshai ,
Police Station :- Dhanuarua , District :- Patna .
…. …. Opposite Parties
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mrs. Renuka Ratnakar, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
2. This application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been
filed to quash the order dated 09.06.2014 passed by learned SDJM,
Jehanabad in Jehanabad P.S.Case No.379 of 2011/Trial No.2667 of 2014. The
learned Magistrate finding sufficient materials in case diary for framing charges
Prohibition Act rejected their petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and
refused to discharge them.
3. It has been submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is not legally
married wife of petitioner no.1 She is stranger to the family of the petitioners. At
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34411 of 2014 dt.28-07-2017
the time of investigation some of the witnesses of the locality have stated that, on
12.05.2011 the informant along with some persons came by a Bolero jeep and
unloaded the luggage and entered into and abandoned house of the petitioner
no.1. The police have submitted chargesheet only on the basis of statement of
some of the witnesses who supported the version of the informant. The learned
Magistrate has passed the impugned order in mechanical manner and so the same
is fit to be quashed. The learned APP on the hand opposed the submissions.
4. On perusal of FIR and the statement of witnesses recorded, I find
that the witnesses have stated that the petitioner no.1 had married with the
informant. The petitioner no.1 used to visit at the place of informant and in that
course he developed intimacy with the Opposite Party No.2 and he married with
her. After marriage the Opposite Party No.2 (informant) visited at the place of the
petitioners and stayed for about two months. The family members were not
happy with the said marriage and they started demanding money and on account
of non-fulfilment of demand they abused, assaulted and ousted from their house.
The allegation of abusing and assaulting is against all the petitioners. The
petitioner no.1 and his family members tortured the informant. The materials on
record are sufficient to frame charges against the petitioners.
5. Considering the above material in the case diary, I do not find any
merit in the submission of learned counsel or the petitioners. As such, this
criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
Uploading Date 01.08.2017