Anil Kumar Verma & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 1 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40860 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2989 Year- 2011 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
PATNA

1. Anil Kumar Verma Son Of Late Chhote Lal Verma Residents Of Flat No. 303,
Om Residency, New Chtiragupta Nagar, Parwati Path, Kankerbagh P.S.-
Patrakar Nagar, Dist-Patna

2. Sulochana Verma Wife Of Anil Kumar Verma Residents Of Flag No. 303, Om
Residency, New Chtiragupta Nagar, Parwati Path, Kankerbagh P.S.-Patrakar
Nagar, Dist-Patna
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. State Of Bihar

2. Nupur Singh Wife Of Sri Avinash Kumar Verma, Daughter Of Sri Pramod
Kumar Present Residing At House No. F/4, Indrapuri Path, Saristabad Road
P.S.S-Gardanibag, Dist.-Atn
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar
Mr. Pranav Kumar

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

10.07.2012, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in

Complaint Case No. 2989 C of 2011, whereby cognizance has been

taken against the petitioners for the offence under sections 498A of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40860 of 2013 dt.01-08-2017

2/4

the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and the present

prosecution has been instituted with mala fide intention for the

purposes of harassment. Only general and omnibus allegations have

been levelled in the complaint petition. It is alleged that complainant

was ousted from her matrimonial home on 21.05.2010, she was

threatened in the Court premises on 20.07.2011, but the present

complaint has been lodged in November, 2011. This shows falsity of

the allegations levelled. Complainant has filed a petition for

maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage

Act and only with a view to pressurize the petitioner to get more

maintenance the present false complaint has been filed. Learned

counsel, in support of his argument for quashing the order taking

cognizance, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases, 567.

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 materials available 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.40860 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 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, cited above, is 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 take all the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40860 of 2013 dt.01-08-2017

4/4

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 10.05.2017
Uploading Date
Transmission
Date

Leave a Comment

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