Dilip Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 31 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35325 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2011 Thana -VIJAYPUR District- GOPALGANJ

Dilip Yadav son of Ramadhar Yadav Resident of Village- Kutiya, P.S.- Vijaipur,
District- Gopalganj

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Manju Devi, wife of Dilip Yadav daughter of Keshav Yadav Resident of
Village- Kutiya, P.S.- Vijaipur, District- Gopalganj. At present resident of
Village- Tatayar Khurd, P.S.- Khampur, District- Deoriya (U.P.)

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Fahimuddin, APP.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA
JAISWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 31-07-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated

21.02.2012 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Gopalganj in Trial No. 3656 of 2014 arising out of Vijaipur P.S.

Case No. 55 of 2011, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken

cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 498A and 494/34 of

the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other accused

persons.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35325 of 2014 dt.31-07-2017

2/4

that in the entire complaint petition, there is no allegation of demand

of dowry against the petitioner. Hence, offence under Section 498A

of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is further submitted by

learned counsel for the petitioner that regarding the same demand of

dowry, another case has been filed by the opposite party no.2 at

Deoria which is still pending. Hence, this case is not maintainable on

this score alone.

4. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel

for opposite party no.2 that the petitioner happens to be the husband

of the opposite party no.2 and there is specific allegation of demand

of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- for doing business by him and also

subjecting the opposite party no.2 to various sorts of torture over the

said demand and driving her out of her marital house snatching her

belongings and thrashing her. Hence, prima facie case is made out

against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no bar in

filing another complaint petition under Section 498A and other allied

sections of the Indian Penal Code for the offence committed on

different occasions. Moreover, quashing petition filed by the father-

in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2

has been dismissed by this Court.

5. From perusal of the record, it appears that Vijaipur

P.S. Case No. 55 of 2011 has been instituted under Sections 498A,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35325 of 2014 dt.31-07-2017

3/4

323 and 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of the complaint petition filed by

Opposite party No.2, namely, Manju Devi, with allegation in

succinct that her marriage was performed with the petitioner on

30.05.2006 and after that she went to her marital house and lived

there happily for two months. Thereafter, the petitioner started

demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- for doing business and her in-laws also

endorsed the aforesaid demand. But on failure to cough up the

demand, they subjected her to various sorts of torture and drove her

out of her marital house. However, they took her back following the

Panchayati, but again expelled her from her marital house thrashing

her and snatching her belongings. The petitioner has also performed

second marriage at Delhi.

6. On perusing the chargesheet and the case diary and

finding prima facie case under Sections 323, 498A and 494/34 of the

Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other accused persons,

learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against the

petitioners and others vide impugned order.

7. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears

that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the opposite party

no.2 and there is specific allegation against the petitioner regarding

demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- for doing business and subjecting her to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35325 of 2014 dt.31-07-2017

4/4

various sorts of torture and performing second marriage with some

other lady and driving her out of her marital house snatching her

belongings in connivance of his family members. Thus, prima facie

case appears to be made out against the petitioner and others under

aforesaid sections. Though from perusal of the Annexure-2, it

appears that opposite party no.2 has filed another case under Section

498A and allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and others besides

the case under hand with the allegation, inter alia, of demand of Rs.

2,00,000/- and marshal vehicle in dowry at Deoria but in my

considered opinion, filing of another complaint petition under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is no bar when the

complainant is subjected to cruelty and torture over the dowry

demand on different occasions.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not

find any illegality in the impugned order and any merit and substance

in the present petition. Accordingly, this quashing petition is

dismissed.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J)

Mishra/-

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 04.08.2017
Transmission 04.08.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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