Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 31 October, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35692 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -1071 Year- 2011 Thana -MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE District-
MUNGER

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Son of Shankar Mistry @ Shankar Sharma resident of
village- Shambhuganj, P.S.- Shambhuganj, District- Banka

…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sony Devi D/o Jago Sah Wife of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Resident of Mohalla-
Chhoti Keshopur, P.S.- Jamalpur, District- Munger.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 31-10-2017

This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been

filed to quash the order dated 01.03.2012 passed by SDJM, Sadar,

Munger in Complaint Case No.1071 of 2011 whereby and

whereunder the learned SDJM took cognizance for the offence under

Section 498A/34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

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

3. It has been submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is

wife of this petitioner and she has filed a series of cases against the

petitioner. After filing of complaint case no.1071C of 2011, she has
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35692 of 2014 dt.31-10-2017

2/3

filed a police case vide Jamalpur P.S.Case No.98 of 2012 for the

offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the police have submitted

chargesheet no.143 of 2012 on 31.10.2012. Besides the said cases, she

has filed a Miscellaneous Case No.81 of 2014 and as per direction of

Principal Judge, Family Court given on 26.05.2014 the petitioner is

paying maintenance to the Opposite Party No.2. The allegation of

torture and demand of dowry is omnibus. The allegation in complaint

case and police case is one and the same and so the petitioner can’t be

prosecuted in two different cases for the similar charges and so the

prosecution of the petitioner is bad and is fit to be quashed.

4. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 as well

as Additional P.P. opposed the submission.

5. On perusal of complaint petition and allegation made in

the police case, I find that both the cases relate to torture and demand

of dowry by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate after going through

the complaint petition, statement of complaint on solemn affirmation

and other witnesses, has taken cognizance against the petitioner as per

order dated 01.03.2012. The cognizance order is based on material on

record and I do not find any illegality requiring any interference with

the impugned order. However, the police case which is pending for

framing of charge is ordered to be amalgamated with the present
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35692 of 2014 dt.31-10-2017

3/3

complaint case.

6. With this observation, this criminal application is

disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar, J)

B.Kr./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 02.11.2017
Transmission 02.11.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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