Indra Bhusan Singh @ Sudhir Kr. … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 11 August, 2017

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33300 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33300 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -328 Year- 2010 Thana -BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District-
BHAGALPUR

1. Indra Bhusan Singh @ Sudhir Kr. Singh, son of Anti Singh.

2. Neelam Singh, wife of Indra Bhusan Singh.

3. Pranav Singh, son of Sudhir Kr. Singh, All resident of Mohalla – Tilak Manjhi
near Shela Bhawan , Police Station -Tilak Manjhi, District – Bhagalpur.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Rachna Asis, Daughter of Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh , resident of Khirnighat
(Raja Bari ) Bari Khanjarpur in the house of Sri Rama Nand Prasad Singh , Police
Station – Barari , District – Bhagalpur.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate.
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Pradeep Narayan Kumar APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-08-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned counsel for the State.

2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 11.04.2014

passed in G.R. Case No. 1349 of 2010, whereby the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, allowed the application of

the informant-opposite party no. 2 for adducing the evidence.

3. The facts leading to this application is that

informant-opposite party no. 2 lodged the Kotwali (Brari) P.S. Case
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33300 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017

No. 328 of 2010, on 20.05.2010, for the offence under Section 498A

of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

against her husband Pranav Kumar Singh, father-in-law Sudhir Singh,

mother-in-law Neelam Singh and brother-in-law Vani Singh. On

investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against only accused-

petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after framing the

charge the trial started against the accused-petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in

course of trial, informant-opposite party no. 2 filed an application to

close the evidence due to compromise entered in between the

informant-opposite party no. 2 and accused-petitioners and

accordingly the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Bhagalpur, closed the evidence of the prosecution and recorded the

statement of the accused-petitioners, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

But thereafter informant-opposite party no. 2 filed an application to

permit her to adduce the evidence as terms of the compromise has

been disobeyed by the accused-petitioners with submission that since

the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not

compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., as such, closing of the

evidence on the basis of compromise petition filed earlier is not

maintainable. After hearing the informant-opposite party no. 2 and the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33300 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017

accused-petitioners, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Bhagalpur, allowed the application of the informant-opposite party

no. 2 filed on 16.12.2013 illegally and fixed the date on 13.06.2014

for evidence.

5. On going through the impugned order, I find no

illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of

the court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application is

dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise his

defence as raised herein in trial court at the appropriate stage.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Bhardwaj/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 17.08.2017
Transmission 17.08.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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