Raju Ranjan Singh @ Raju Ranjan … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 11 October, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41030 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -196 Year- 2013 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
SASARAM (ROHTAS)

1. Raju Ranjan Singh @ Raju Ranjan Kumar Singh, son of Madesh Singh

2. Madesh Singh Son of Late Rama Singh

3. Minta Devi, wife of Madesh Singh

4. Seema Devi, wife of Raju Ranjan Kumar Singh,
All Resident of Village- Dumra, P.S. Haspura, District- Aurangabad. At present
New Tapowan Colony, Kokar Chowk, Ranchi (Near Arbul Battery)

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rinki Devi, Wife of Ravi Ranjan Singh, Resident of Village- Dumra, P.S.
Haspura, District- Aurangabad (Bihar). At present Father Hari Narayan Pandey,
Village- Kaupa, P.S.- Karakat (Godari), District- Rohtas, Bihar

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Shardanand Jha, APP
For the Opposite Party no.2 : Mr.Nagendra Upadhayay, Adv.

Mr. Maya Shankar Mishra, Adv.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-10-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel representing the opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the

State.

The petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law, petitioner

no.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law and

petitioner no.4 is the sister-in-law (wife of elder brother of the

husband) of the complainant-opposite party no.2. All the petitioners

are seeking quashing of the order dated 29.05.2013 passed by learned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41030 of 2014 dt.11-10-2017 2

S.D.J.M., Bikramganj (Rohtas) in Complaint Case No.196 of 2013 by

which the learned S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance of the offence under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and decided to issue summons

against the accused persons. No cognizance was taken of the offences

alleged under Sections 406, 494 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code

read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all

these petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case on a

totally vague, general and omnibus allegation. He has brought on

record the deposition of the enquiry witnesses also by filing a

supplementary affidavit. According to learned counsel, the marriage

was solemnized in the year 2005 and the present complaint came to be

filed after about eight years. The allegations in the complaint petition

only says that when the complainant reached her Naihar after

marriage she was told by the accused clearly that if a motorcycle and

one chain (Sikri) are not being given, she would not be taken by

performing Bidai Ceremony. It is alleged that all the accused persons

physically and mentally tortured her for not bringing the dowry. It is

alleged that in connivance with the accused persons her husband had

performed 2nd marriage on 19.09.2012.

Learned counsel submits that in the whole complaint

petition or in the statement of the enquiry witnesses there is not even
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41030 of 2014 dt.11-10-2017 3

whisper of any active participation or commission of any over act by

these petitioners in the matter of demand of dowry or act of cruelty.

The learned S.D.J.M. has not taken cognizance under Section 494 of

the Indian Penal Code. There was not even a prima facie case brought

before the learned court below to substantiate the allegation of 2 nd

marriage.

Learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2

though opposed the application for quashing of the impugned order,

but in course of argument and while answering the specific question

put to him he would accept the factual position as appearing from the

complaint petition and the deposition of the enquiry witnesses that

there is not a single line alleging any over act of cruelty against these

petitioners who are family members.

This Court has considered the materials available on

the record and submissions made at the bar. The petitioners in the case

are close kith and kin of the husband. The petitioner no.1 is the

brother-in-law who has nothing to do with the family of opposite

party no.2. Similarly, the respondent no.4 is the wife of petitioner

no.1. Save and except that they are family members, there is nothing

in the complaint petition or deposition of witnesses to substantiate the

allegations against them. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-

law and mother-in-law and against them also there is no specific
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41030 of 2014 dt.11-10-2017 4

allegation of either demand of dowry or commission of any act of

cruelty.

In the opinion of this Court, the prosecution of the

present petitioners on the basis of the statements made in the

complaint petition and deposition of enquiry witnesses is only an

abuse of the process of the Court. The order taking cognizance and the

issuance of summons as against them has been passed in a routine and

mechanical manner, therefore the impugned order in so far as it relates

to the present petitioners is hereby quashed.

The application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

Arvind/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 14.10.2017
Transmission 14.10.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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