Ram Nath Pathak & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 October, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40516 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2012 Thana -BIDUPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR)

1. Ram Nath Pathak Son Of Late Baleshwar Pathak R/O Village-Kaila
Chak, P.S.-Bidupur, Distt-Vaishali

2. Mamta Pathak Wife Of Ram Nath Pathak R/O Village-Kaila Chak,
P.S.-Bidupur, Distt-Vaishali
…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Sweta Soni Wife Of Mahesh Kumar Pathak And Daughter Of Sri
Janardan Thakur R/O Loma, P.S.-Tisiauta, Distt-Vaishali
…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Rina Sinha, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 09-10-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the

Opposite Party No. 2.

The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking

quashing of the order dated 25.05.2013 passed by Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Bidupur P.S. Case No.

36/2012 (Tr. No. 3435/2013), by which learned Magistrate

took cognizance under Section 498A/34 and 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40516 of 2013 dt.09-10-2017

2

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in

the present case, the petitioners, being father-in-law and

mother-in-law respectively, are being unnecessarily harassed

on the basis of ornamental allegations made against them in

the first information report. Learned counsel further submits

that, in fact, the efforts taken by this Court by sending this

matter for mediation could not culminate in a fruitful result

because the Opposite Party No. 2 is not cooperating and even

in this Court she has not taken any stand as regards amicable

settlement. He further submits that there is no material in the

case diary which may warrant a view taking a prima facie case

against these petitioners. This Court has perused the

impugned order and the materials available on the record. In

the First Information Report, there is an allegation that Rs.

2,00,000/- was taken in the account of the petitioner no. 1 by

way of dowry, the learned Magistrate has, while taking

cognizance, observed in his order that on perusal of the

records including the original case diary, it appears that there

are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused

persons. Since, the case diary is not available before this Court

and the matter is pending for about four years before this
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40516 of 2013 dt.09-10-2017

3

Court, instead of keeping the matter pending here, this Court

is of the view that the court below should proceed with the

matter and fix a date for framing of charge. These petitioners

shall also be given an opportunity to file an appropriate

application seeking discharge, and if such an application is filed

by the petitioners, the court below shall consider and dispose

of the same considering all the materials and submissions of

the petitioners.

So far as the order taking cognizance is concerned,

this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order, the

prayer for setting aside the impugned order is refused.

With the above observations and directions, this

application is disposed of.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.10.2017
Transmission 09.10.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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