Rajnish Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 1 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53719 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -208 Year- 2011 Thana -KUDHNI District- MUZAFFARPUR

1. Rajnish Kumar Son Of Ramesh Singh Resident Of Village – Balaur, P.S.
Kurhani, District – Muzaffarpur

2. Ramesh Singh Son Of Late Hanslal Singh Resident Of Village – Balaur, P.S.
Kurhani, District – Muzaffarpur

3. Meena Devi Wife Of Ramesh Singh Resident Of Village – Balaur, P.S. Kurhani,
District – Muzaffarpur

4. Rakesh Kumar Son Of Rameswar Singh Resident Of Village – Thatiyan, P.O.
Balaur, P.S. Kurhani, District – Muzaffarpur

5. Kanchan Mala Wife Of Rakesh Kumar Resident Of Village – Thatiyan, P.O.
Balaur, P.S. Kurhani, District – Muzaffarpur

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Rinku Singh Wife Of Shiv Ranjan Kumar, D/O Sri Suresh Singh Resident Of
Village – Kabia, P.O. Azizpur, P.S. Kurhani, District – Muzaffarpur

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumr @ Sanidh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date: 01-08-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners, by means of this application under section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have invoked the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53719 of 2013 dt.01-08-2017

2/4

30.09.2013, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West,

Muzaffarpur, in Kurhani P.S. Case No. 208 of 2011, whereby

cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence

under sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and

the present prosecution has been instituted with mala fide intention

for the purposes of harassment. The occurrence is alleged to have

taken place on 05.02.2010 whereas the present first information

report has been lodged on 22.08.2011. There is delay of about six

month, but there is no explanation for the delay. Learned counsel, in

support of his argument for quashing the order taking cognizance,

has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and the Orissa High Court reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 3363, A.I.R.

1992 SC 604 and 2003 Cr. L.J.3772.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the

application by contending that there are allegations against the

petitioners and no ground for quashing the entire proceedings is

made out.

From perusal of the material on record and looking into

the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53719 of 2013 dt.01-08-2017

3/4

made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at bar

relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated

upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under section 482

Cr. P.C. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the

existence of sufficient ground to proceeding in the matter is required.

At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law

laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of

Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,

1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC

(Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful

Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and recently in

A.R.C.I. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 348.

The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners call

for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately

gone into by the trial Court in this case. This Court does not deem it

proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before

the actual trial begins. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be

considered at this stage. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and the Orissa High Court, cited above, are on different set of

facts and the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of

the present case. Further, the petitioners have got a right of discharge

through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53719 of 2013 dt.01-08-2017

4/4

take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the

trial Court. The prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance is

refused.

The application accordingly stands dismissed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)

Manish/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 15.05.2017
Uploading Date 03.08.2017
Transmission 03.08.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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