Rajeev Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 18 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45081 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3534 Year- 2012 Thana -SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
SARAN

1. Rajeev Kumar son of Sri Krishna Kumar

2. Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kr. son of Sri Krishna Kumar

3. Alok Kumar son of Sri Krishna Kumar

4. Krishna Kumar son of Late Pati Sah

5. Janki @ Janki Devi W/o Krishna Prasad All resident of Janki Cottage,
Hanuman Nagar, Shyamchak, Gudari Market behind R.C.C. Bank, P.S.
Bhagwan Bazar, P.O. / Distt. Chapra ( Saran )

…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sundarshana Jyoti D/o Late Jamuna Prasad R/o Jawahar Tola, P.S. Nawadah,
Distt. – Bhojpur At present residing in Railway Gandak Colony, Quarter No.
558/C, P.S. Nagar, Samastipur, District – Samastipur

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav No.1, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 18-09-2017

This criminal miscellaneous application under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated

06.09.2014 passed in Enquiry No.688 of 2013 arising out of

Complaint Case No.3534 of 2012 by SDJM, Saran at Chapra.

The learned Magistrate finding prima facie case for the offence

under Section 498A of the IPC against the five petitioners and

Section 376/511 of the IPC against petitioner no.3 ordered for

issuance of summons.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45081 of 2014 dt.18-09-2017

2/4

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 as well as learned APP for

the State.

3. The Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint case

on the file of CJM, Chapra, Saran alleging inter-alia that she

was married with petitioner no.1 on 19.04.2012 according to

Hindu Rites and Rituals. After two months of marriage, her

husband and in-laws started torturing her. The petitioner no.2

who is full brother of her husband allegedly committed rape on

her in the night of 08.06.2012 and she was ousted by the

petitioners from the matrimonial house.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the Opposite Party No.2 is not the wife of petitioner no.1. The

petitioner no.1 has been married with one Puja Kumari on

19.10.2012. The Opposite Party No.2 has lodged Mithanpura

(Muzaffarpur) P.S.Case No.147 of 2012 for the offence under

Section 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She

has filed one more case bearing Mithanpura (Muzaffarpur)

P.S.Case Case No.125 of 2013 for the offence under Sections

498A, 504, 323, 506 and 379 of the IPC as well as 3/4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation against petitioners, all

the three cases are similar and so the prosecution of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45081 of 2014 dt.18-09-2017

3/4

petitioners at three forum is not legally sustainable. There is no

evidence of marriage of complaint with the petitioner no.1 and

so the criminal prosecution of these petitioners in a case lodged

by stranger would be an abuse of the process of the Court and so

the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2

as well as learned APP opposed the submissions.

6. On perusal of complaint petition as well as two FIRs

lodged by the Opposite Party No.2 and annexures available on

record, I find that the petitioner no.1 in a proceeding has

admitted the Opposite Party No.2 as his wife. There are

sufficient material against the petitioners constituting prima-

facie case for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The

cause of action in all the three cases appear different. I further

find that allegation of assault and torture is specific against all

the petitioners. The learned Magistrate in course of enquiry

found sufficient material against the petitioners in the statement

of witnesses and accordingly took cognizance under Section

498A of the IPC against all the petitioners and Sections 376/511

of the IPC against petitioner no.3.

7. In view of above discussions, I do not find any

illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance. This
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45081 of 2014 dt.18-09-2017

4/4

criminal application is devoid of merit and is accordingly

dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar, J)

B.Kr./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 22.09.2017
Transmission 22.09.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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