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
