Md. Tajuddin & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20420 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -394 Year- 2010 Thana -M UNGER COM PLAINT CASE District-
MUNGER

1. Md. Tajuddin , S/o Md. Reyajuddin

2. Md.Reyajuddin S/o Late Md. Natho

3. Bajo W/o Md. Reyajuddin

4. Noor Alam @ Noor Uddin @ Mitthu S/o Md. Reyazuddin
All resident of Village Nayagaw P.O. Basdeopur P.S. Kotwali, District Munger.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Afsana Khatoon W/o Tajuddin D/o Md. Saheb resident of Village Nayagao n
P.O. Basdeopur P.S. Kotwali District Munger. At present resident of Village Hazrat
Ganj Bara, Gali No. 4, P.O. Munger, P.S. Kasim Bazar District Munger.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opposite Party/s :

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 21-11-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. The present application is filed for quashing of

cognizance order dated 07.12.2010 and subsequent criminal

proceedings in Complaint Case No. 394(C) of 2010 pending in the

court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, who has

taken cognizance in the matter under Sections 323, 498A and 504 of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

complainant is in the habit of lodging complaint repeatedly under
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.20420 of 2014 dt.21-11-2017

2/2

Section 498A of I.P.C. and earlier case was withdrawn on the basis of

compromise but again she has filed this case against the petitioners

though husband is always ready to keep her but she does not intend to

reside in matrimonial home.

4. Contrary to that, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2

negates the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and

submits that wife is dependant on the husband for her care and

maintenance, therefore, after lodging of the first complaint, she

compromised as her husband was ready to keep her with respect and

dignity but again, after withdrawal of the first case, started torturing

her in connection with demand of dowry and the allegations are

specific against all accused petitioners.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and on

perusal of record, the Court finds that allegations levelled in the

complaint are specific against all the petitioners and it is not the case

that ingredients of the offence are not disclosed in the complaint

against the accused persons. So there is no need for interference in the

cognizance order. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Arun Kumar, J)
Sujit/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.11.2017
Transmission 27.11.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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