Arvind Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 4 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38110 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -406 Year- 2013 Thana -BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
BUXAR

1. Arvind Kumar

2. Bablu Prasad Srivastava @ Ajeet Kumar Sinha

3. Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Prasad Srivastava

4. Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Prasad Srivastava

5. Dolly Kumari
Brij Kumar Prasad Srivastava is the father of all the five petitoners

6. Brij Kumar Prasd @ Brij Kumar Prasad Sriastava, son of late Shyamlanand Lal.

7. Girija Devi, wife of Brij Kumar Prasad Srivastava
All resident of Civil Line (Near Sub Jail) Buxar, P.S.- Buxar District- Buxar.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Soni Kumari @ Anita Kumar, wife of Arbind Kumar, D/o Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, resident of Civil Line (Near Sub Jail) Buxar, P.S.- Buxar District-
Buxar.

3. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, son of late Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, resident of village- +
P.O- Unwash, P.S.- Itarhi, District- Buxar.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dileep Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Amit Shanker, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 04-08-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

A.P.P. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. The petitioners are accused in Complaint Case No.

406(C) of 2013. In the said case, the Sub Divisional Judicial
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38110 of 2014 dt.04-08-2017

2/3

Magistrate, Buxar has taken cognizance of offence under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act by order dated 19.05.2014. The petitioners seek

READ  Smt. Laxmi vs Om Parkash & Ors on 9 July, 2001

indulgence to set aside the cognizance order as no prima facie case

under said section is made out.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact

marriage was never consummated since its solemnization and she also

deserted her husband. The marriage with the petitioner was fixed by

her father, however, she was in love relationship with other person, on

these grounds, a divorce suit was filed by the husband, being Divorce

Suit No. 6 of 2012, and in the said suit, wife appeared and admitted

the allegation and also gave consent for passing of divorce decree and

accordingly, the judgment was passed on 21.03.2013 allowing divorce

consequently decree was prepared on 03.04.2013, thereafter this

present complaint has been filed on 01.05.2013. He further submits

that prior to filing of the present complaint, her father also filed two

complaint cases being Complaint Case No.607(C) of 2012 under

Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act and Complaint Case No. 27(C) of 2013 under

Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code though she appeared before

the investigating agency and the case was dropped.

4. Having considered submissions, the Court is of the view
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38110 of 2014 dt.04-08-2017

3/3

that continuation of the present criminal proceeding would be abuse

of the process of the court for the reason that prior to filing of the

present case, a divorce decree was passed and in the said proceeding

the wife-complainant appeared and consented for divorce and

READ  National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Rattani & Ors. on 18 December, 2008

accepted the settlement made by the husband and the same is reflected

from the judgment passed therein. So, for the aforesaid reason, the

entire criminal proceeding including cognizance order dated

19.05.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 406(C) of 2013 pending in

the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar is

hereby quashed. The application stands allowed.

(Arun Kumar, J)
Sujit/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.08.2017
Transmission 11.08.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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