Bharti Kumari @ Bhurati Kumari vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17793 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2364 Year- 2004 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
PATNA

Bharti Kumari @ Bhurati Kumari, W/O Surendra Sharma, Resident of Mohalla-
Indra Nagar, Mainpura, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Kiran Devi, W/O Sri Surendra Sharma, R/O Mohalla- Kurzi Baluwapar, P.S.-
Dujara, Distt.- Patna
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 1, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Kiran Devi (in person).

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 02-11-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

for the State and O.P. No. 2 appearing in person.

2. Petitioner, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this

Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

seeks quashing of cognizance order dated 28.09.2004 passed by the

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2364

of 2004 thereby taking cognizance of offence under Sections 323,

498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also issued summons

against the petitioner to stand trial in the case.

3. Short fact giving rise to this case is that complainant

was married with Surendra Sharma on 30.06.1987 and out of their
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17793 of 2013 dt.02-11-2017

2/4

wedlock, three children were born but after marriage, all the family

members used to make demand of one katha land, when demand was

not fulfilled by the father of the complainant, they used to assault and

torture her to realize the demand. It is also alleged that her husband

used to neglect her and her children and not maintaining them.

Besides this, her husband has developed illicit relationship with Bharti

Kumari, this petitioner, and she also used to visit the house of the

husband of the complainant but the complainant used to protest her

visit, on account of that, all accused persons used to assault her.

Complainant having no alternative, lives with her parents along with

her children.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that only allegation against the petitioner is that the

complainant’s husband has illicit relationship her but there is no

allegation against this petitioner regarding making any demand in

dowry or torturing complainant in that connection. He further submits

that other family members, except the husband, all accused in this

case, approached this Court earlier for quashing cognizance order and

the same was set aside by order dated 01.11.2012 passed in Cr. Misc.

No. 974 of 2008, as the Court disbelieved the allegation of making

demand of dowry and torture from the period 1987 to 2004, i.e., from

the date of marriage to filing of the complaint case.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17793 of 2013 dt.02-11-2017

3/4

5. Complainant, O.P. No. 2 in the present application,

appears in person, submits that this petitioner lives with her husband

having illicit relationship between them and so she is being neglected

by her husband.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and on

perusal of record, the Court finds complete absence of any allegation

against this petitioner regarding torturing the complainant in

connection with demand of dowry. Petitioner is also not relative of the

husband of the complainant, as she is not related either by blood or by

marriage relationship. Section 498A reads as such:

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.”

7. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is attracted

only against her husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty.

8. The only allegation in the complaint against the

petitioner is that she has had illicit relationship with complainant’s

husband, in the backdrop of such fact, no ingredient of offence under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the

petitioner moreover there is no specific allegation that she assaulted
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17793 of 2013 dt.02-11-2017

4/4

on any particular day to the complainant, so continuance of the

criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be abuse of the

process of the court., Hence, the entire criminal proceeding inclusive

of the cognizance order dated 28.09.2004 passed by the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2364 of

2004 with respect to this petitioner only, is set aside.

9. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.

(Arun Kumar, J)

Sujit/-

AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.11.2017
Transmission 07.11.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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