Vivek Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.436 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- MUZAFFARPUR

1. Vivek Kumar Son of Ram Naresh Prasad

2. Vikash Kumar Son of Ram Naresh Prasad

3. Ram Naresh Prasad Son of Late Devnandan Prasad

4. Gaytri Devi wife of Ram Naresh Prasad

5. Jyoti Devi @ Jyoti Kumari Wife of Vikash Kumar All are residents of Bairia
Gandhi Nagar, P.S. – Ahiyapur, District – Muzaffarpur.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.

3. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

4. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Pramandal, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Superintendent of Police , Muzaffarpur.

6. The S.H.O. Police Station – Ahiyapur, Muzaffarpur.

…. …. Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kumod Kumar Shrivastaw, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, GA-3
: Mr. Dilip Kumar, AC to GA-3

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 02-08-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate for the State-respondent.

The petitioners are accused of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.207

of 2011, a case under Sections 304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The F.I.R. is based on the complaint filed on 31.05.2011 by

Dhananjay Prasad Shrivastawa alleging therein that Nibha Kumari,

the sister of the informant, was married with petitioner Vivek Kumar

on 29.11.2010. In spite of sufficient gift given by the informant, there
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.436 of 2016 dt.02-08-2017

2/3

was more demand of dowry from the petitioners and on non-

fulfilment of the same the petitioners tortured to the victim Nibha

Kumari. Further allegation is that two months back Nibha Kumari

was taken to her matrimonial house at mohalla Beria Gandhi Nagar,

P.S. Ahiyapur, Distict- Muzaffarpr and on 23.05.2011 one Rajendra

Rai informed that the sister of the informant was done to death by the

in-laws and all have gone to dispose of the dead body.

After investigation of the case the police submitted charge

sheet No.229 of 2013, under Sections 304B, 364, 201,498A and 120B

of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, Sessions Trial No.292 of 2014

is pending before the Sessions Court at Muzaffarpur.

By invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners

have prayed for commanding the respondents as well as the learned

Court-below/trial Court to not proceed with the trial as the trial Court

has no territorial jurisdiction of the matter for the reason that the

petitioner Vivek Kumar is a military man, on 23.05.2011 he was

posted at Baramula in the State of Jammu and Kasmir and the victim

was also residing along with him there at. All of sudden, the victim

was found missing from the house. The petitioner intimated the

aforesaid missing to his Officer-in-Charge immediately on 23.05.2011

itself, vide Annexure-8 and, thereafter again on 24.05.2011 vide

Annexure-9 as well as to the Station House Officer of Siwalpatti

Police Station vide Annexure- 10. He further submits that the Uri
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.436 of 2016 dt.02-08-2017

3/3

Police Station granted a certificate vide Annexure-13 that nothing

adverse was found against the petitioner during investigation nor any

family members of the girl side appeared on notice to cooperate with

the investigation. Contention is that the place of inquiry and trial

should have been at Uri.

I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission

though the same may be a defence available to the petitioners during

trial. The main reason for rejection of the submission of the

petitioners is that the present F.I.R. was lodged with allegation that

the victim was done to death at Beria in Muzaffarpur and after

investigation the police has submitted charge sheet finding the

allegation true. There is no material to substantiate that the

complainant or the Ahiyapur Police had knowledge of any parallel

investigation going on at Uri nor there is material on record to

substantiate that Uri police has properly investigated the cognizable

offence.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ application.

Accordingly, it stands disposed of being devoid of any merit.

(Birendra Kumar, J)
Mkr./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.08.2017
Transmission 04.08.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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