Manoj Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 20 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37794 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -303 Year- 2008 Thana -PATNA COM PLAINT CASE District-
PATNA

1. Manoj Kumar, Son of Late Doman Sah Halwai @ Doman Sah

2. Piyriya Devi @ Payari Devi, W/o Late Doman sah halwai @ Doman Sah

3. Chinta Devi, W/o Dinesh Prasad Gupta

4. Renu Devi D/o Doman Sah, Halwai @ Doman Sah

5. Savita @ Sabita Devi ,W/o Bhola Sao All resident of Mohalla – Dihura, Police
Station – Alipur, District- Gaya.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mamta Devi, W/o Manoj Kumar, Resident of Mohalla – Mir Ki Bag (in the house
of Bechan Prasad Mastar Sahab), Police Station – Khajekala, District- Patna.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opposite Party/s :

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 20-11-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. Petitioners seek quashing of order dated 27.06.2014

passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in

Complaint Case No. 303 of 2008 thereby taking cognizance of

offence under section 498A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3. A short fact leading to filing of the present complaint

case is that complainant marriage was solemnized on 04.05.2001 with

Manoj Kumar, petitioner no. 1. Only after passing of 10 days, all
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.37794 of 2014 dt.20-11-2017

2/3

accused persons started torturing her in connection with further

realizing demand of dowry, they asked for transferring by her father a

residential house in the name of husband. It is alleged that for

purchasing house, the father of the complainant assured the accused

persons to give financial help and gave Rs. 20,000/- five times to the

husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant but

continued to torture her, ultimately she was ousted from matrimonial

home.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned order was passed in mechanical way despite no prima facie

case is made out against the petitioners no. 2 to 5. Petitioner no. 2 is

mother-in-law; whereas petitioners no. 3, 4 and 5 are nanads, out of

them two are married nanads .

5. Having considered the rival submissions of both sides,

and on perusal of record, the Court finds that allegation relating to

making demand and torture is specific against the petitioners no. 1

and 2 of this application who are husband and mother-in-law of the

complainant however, rest other petitioners, who are nanads, out of

which, two are married living at distant place and another unmarried

and have no concern in day to day affairs of the complainant and her

husband; moreover, allegations are sweeping in nature and there is no

specific allegation with regard to making demand of dowry or torture
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.37794 of 2014 dt.20-11-2017

3/3

against them except casual reference of theirs. So prima facie, no

offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act is attracted against petitioners no. 3,4 and 5 namely,

Chinta Devi, Renu Devi and Savita @ Sabita Devi , hence,

cognizance order dated 27.06.2016 and subsequent criminal

proceeding with respect to these three are hereby quashed.

6. As far as petitioners no. 1 and 2, namely, Manoj

Kumar and Piyriya Devi @ Payari Devi are concerned, the criminal

proceeding will proceed further in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.

(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 *