Rakesh Srivastava @ Ritesh … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 October, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41506 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1483 Year- 2012 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
PATNA

1. Rakesh Srivastava @ Ritesh Shrivastava Son of Shri Nag Narayan Shrivastava.

2. Nag Narayan Shrivastava Son of Late Thakur Prasad Shrivastava.

3. Smt. Chandrawati Devi W/o Shri Nag Narayan Shrivastava.

4. Uma Shankar Shrivastava S/o Shri Nag Narayan Shrivastava.

5. Sanjay Shrivastava S/o Shri Nag Narayan Shrivastava.

6. Munna Shrivastava S/o Shri Nag Narayan Shrivastava.

7. Pamila Devi W/o late Maha Shankar Shrivastava,

8. Anita Shrivastava W/o Shri Papu Shrivastava
All are Resident of Village-Mathiya, P.S.-Chhatauni, District-Motihari, East
Champaran.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Smt. Punita Shrivastava W/o Shri Rakesh Shrivastava @ Ritesh, Resident of
Village-Mathiya Dih, P.S.-Chhatauni, P.O.-Motihari, District-East Champaran at
present residing in the mohalla-Bindeshwari Nagar, Patliputra Colony, Polytechnic
More, P.O.+P.S.-Patliputra, District-Patna.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, Adv.

Miss Anu Priyadarshni, Adv.

For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

APP for the State. Although the opposite party no.2 has entered

appearance and the name of the learned counsel representing the

opposite party no.2 is appearing on the daily cause list, but she has not

appeared to oppose the present application.

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated

24.09.2012 passed in Complaint Case No.1483(C) of 2012 by the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41506 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017 2

learned S.D.J.M., Patna who has taken cognizance of the offences

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act and decided to issue summons against the

present petitioners.

The grievance of the learned counsel representing the

petitioners is that by filing a malicious kind of prosecution the

complainant-opposite party no.2 has falsely implicated the entire

family of the husband. Learned counsel points out that during the

pendency of the present application, the petitioner no.2 Nag Narayan

Shrivastava, who was an old man and happened to be the father-in-

law of the complainant, has already died. He would further submit

that the petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.4 is the

elder brother of the husband (petitioner no.1) and petitioner nos.5 and

6 are younger brothers of the husband, petitioner no.7 is the widow of

one of the elder brothers of the husband and the petitioner no.8 is the

married sister of the husband of the complainant. Marriage of the

complainant was solemnized with petitioner no.1 in the year 2009, but

because of some matrimonial discord the complainant-opposite party

no.2 was not staying with her husband who is working at Ghaziabad

in the State of U.P. The complainant -opposite party no.2 lodged the

present complaint implicating the entire family members only because

they happen to be the kith and kin of the husband. Submission of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41506 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017 3

learned counsel is that a bare perusal of the complaint petition would

show that there is a general and omnibus allegation of demand of a

sum of Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle for which allegedly the

complainant was abused and not given food by all the accused

persons.

Learned counsel submits that this Court can take

judicial notice of the fact that implication is that of the old age

mother-in-law of the complainant and the elder and younger brothers,

married sister and widow of the elder brother of the husband of the

complainant who are separate in mess and business and are even

residing separately at their own working place. In paragraph 6 of the

petition it is specifically stated about places where the petitioner nos.2

to 8 are residing (now petitioner no.2 is dead).

Although the opposite party no.2 has entered

appearance, but the statements made in the petition regarding

petitioner nos.2 to 8, their status and place of residence separately

have not been denied. These are the uncontroverted statements which

the Court can rely upon.

This Court has perused the complaint petition and the

deposition of the witnesses which are available on the record. A

perusal of the complaint gives an impression to this Court that the

allegations against all the family members are superfluous in nature
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41506 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017 4

and ornamental allegations only stating vaguely the allegations of

abuse and torture etc. The allegations are not even substantiated from

any corroborative materials in course of enquiry. Considering the

nature of relationship of the petitioner nos. 3 to 8, this Court is of the

view that their prosecution because of the matrimonial discord

between the petitioner no.1 and his wife (opposite party no.2) is only

an abuse of the process of the Court. This Court is of the view that the

petitioner nos.3 to 8 who are brothers, mother, widow of the elder

brothers and married sister of petitioner no.1 would only be harassed

if the prosecution is allowed to continue against them. Therefore, it

would be in the interest of justice to quash the order taking

cognizance and issuance of summons so far as it relates to the

petitioner nos.3 to 8 in the present case. The order issuing summons

against the petitioner no.1 is not interfered with and the application is

allowed only in respect of petitioner nos.3 to 8. The order taking

cognizance stands quashed in their respect.

The application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Arvind/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 10.10.2017
Transmission 10.10.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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