Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Prasad & … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 25 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38365 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3819 Year- 2012 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- ARRARIA

1. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Prasad Son of Chhattulal Prasad

2. Chhattulal Prasad, Son of late Ram Vilash Prasad alias Ram Kailash Prasad

3. Devkali Devi Wife of Chhattulal Prasad
All are residents of Mohalla Ward No. 13 Sultan Pokhar, P.S. Farbisganj,
District- Araria, at present village + P.O. – Gopur, P.S. – Garkha, District- Saran
at Chapra.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sheela Devi, W/o Jitendra Kumar alias Jitendra Prasad, Resident of Mohalla
Ward No. 03, Sultan Pokhar Farbisganj, P.S. – Farbisganj, District- Araria.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 25-08-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and the State.

2. The petitioners seeks quashing of the cognizance order

dated 27.05.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Araria in

connection with Complaint Case No. C-3819 of 2012 where he has

taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

complainant O.P. No. 2 was married with the petitioner no. 1 in the

year 2001 and complaint was filed in the 2012 only after receiving
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38365 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

2/2

notice in a divorce suit filed by the husband. He further submits that

complainant is still residing in the matrimonial home, she has also

filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act and the present

prosecution case is malicious in nature only with intention to grab the

house of the petitioners situated in Araria Town.

4. Contrary to the submission, learned counsel for the

O.P. No. 2 submits that there is specific allegation of committing

cruelty and harassment against the petitioners in connection with

demand of further dowry and she has filed also a case under the

Domestic Violence Act.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and on

perusal of record, this Court finds no error in the order taking

cognizance by the court below as it is not the case that the allegation

levelled in the complaint does not disclose the offence. So this

application stands dismissed.

(Arun Kumar, J)
Sujit/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.08.2017
Transmission 28.08.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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