Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Gupta & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 24 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15439 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1733 Year- 2013 Thana -WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- WESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)

1. Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Gupta Son Of Sheoji Prasad @ Sheoji Prasad
Gupta

2. Sheoji Prasad @ Sheoji Prasad Gupta S/O Late Manulal Prasad

3. Sawitri Devi Wife Of Sheoji Prasad @ Sheoji Prasad Gupta All Are Resident
Of Mohalla- Ilamram Chowk, Bettiah, P.S.- Bettaih Town, District- West
Champaran

4. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Gupta Son Of Late Shri Kishun Prasad

5. Rani Devi Wife Of Manoj Kumar Both Are Resident Of Mohalla- Kotwali
Chowk Bettiah, Ward No.-26, P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.-Bettaih Town, District- West
Champaran

6. Ramawati Devi Wife Of Govind Prasad Resident Of Mohalla- Khiriya Ghat,
P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Devi Wife Of Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Gupta,
D/O Raju Kumar Gupta Resident Of Mohalla- Ilram Chowk, Bettaih, Ganj No.-
2 Ward No.-18, P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.-Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No. 1
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishor Prasad

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date: 24-08-2017

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

17.01.2014, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, in

Trial No. 839 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1733C of

2013, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15439 of 2014 dt.24-08-2017

2/3

the offences under section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and

sections 3/4 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. They have been falsely implicated in the

present case. As a matter of fact, complainant was not willing to

marry the petitioner as she was in love with some other person. She

still is not desirous of living with the petitioners. There is no

allegation of demand of dowry or torture by the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the

application by contending that there are allegations against the

petitioner 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 made out against the petitioner. 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 proceed in the matter is

required. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15439 of 2014 dt.24-08-2017

3/3

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

submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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. Moreover, the petitioners have got a right of

discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and he is

free to take all the 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 29.06.2017
Uploading Date 25.08.2017
Transmission 25.08.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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