Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Kumar & … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 October, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41031 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3187 Year- 2013 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
PATNA

1. Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Kumar, Son of Suresh Prasad Singh, Nehru
Road, Chirkunda, P.O.- Sarasa Pahari, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand

2. Sujata Kumari @ Gudia @ Sujata Devi, Wife of Ram Kumar Singh, Resident of
Nilanchal Colony More, Near Big Bazar, Kola Kusuma, Nichitpur, Dhanbad,
Jharkhand

3. Sudha Devi @ Sudha Singh, Wife of Pawan Kumar Singh, Resident of 13, Gaon,
Juravanpur Karar, Anchal- Radhopur, District- Vaishali
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Priyanka Rani, wife of Santosh Kumar, Daughter of Radhe Raman Singh,
Resident of Gali No. 8, Chandmari Road, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party no.2 : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Adv.

Mr.Arvind Kumar Pandey, Adv.

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel representing the opposite party no.2.

The petitioners, in the present case, are Devar

(petitioner no.1) and Nanads (petitioner nos.2 and 3) of the opposite

party no.2 who are facing prosecution by virtue of the order taking

cognizance dated 02.12.2013 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.3187(C) of 2013 at

the instance of the opposite party no.2 under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41031 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017 2

party no.2 have jointly informed this Court that, in fact, the present

complaint arises out of a matrimonial discord between the opposite

party no.2 and her husband in which now the parties have settled their

dispute outside the Court. Learned counsel for the parties informed

this Court that the settlement amount as agreed is Rs.15 lacs payable

to the opposite party no.2 out of which a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- has

already been received by the opposite party no.2 through bank draft,

the rest of the amount i.e. Rs.3,75,000/- is still payable for which the

husband is requesting the opposite party no.2 to receive, but said

amount has not been received so far. Learned counsels further submit

that both the parties have filed an application under Section 13(B) of

the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce by mutual consent in the

Family Court at Patna and it was a condition in the settlement that the

balance amount would be payable at the time of filing of the petition

once the opposite party no.2 puts her signature thereon. Now that the

petition has been filed, the balance amount is ready for payment.

Learned counsel representing the present petitioners

undertakes that the bank draft for the balance amount shall definitely

be handed over to Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned advocate on

record representing the opposite party no.2 latest by 16th October,

2017 and receipt thereof shall be filed in the Family Court, Patna.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel assisting
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41031 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017 3

Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, advocate on record accepts the position

and undertakes that he will ensure that the bank draft is received and

receipt thereof be supplied to the learned counsel representing the

petitioners.

In view of the developments abovementioned and

considering the fact that so far these petitioners are concerned, they

have been made accused in the complaint case being close kith and

kin of the husband, in the opinion of this Court, continuance of their

prosecution is only an abuse of the process of the Court and it would

be in the interest of justice to quash the order taking cognizance and

issuance of summons and is accordingly quashed in so far as it relates

to the present petitioners.

If learned counsel for the petitioners fails to abide by

his undertaking aforesaid, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2

shall be at liberty to mention the matter before this Court for

appropriate order.

The application stands disposed off with the

observations made above.

Arvind/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

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 *