Kamini Devi @ Arti Devi @ Arti Rai & … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 20 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38391 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -246 Year- 2011 Thana -M ADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District-
MADHUBANI

1. Kamini Devi @ Arti Devi @ Arti Rai, Wife of Sri Ballav Prasad Rai

2. Ballav Prasad Rai, Son of Late Rajendra Rai

3. Jyoti Kumar Rai @ Jyoti Kuamr, Son of Sri Ballav Prasad Rai

4. Chandeshwar Kumar @ Moti, Son of Sri Ballav Prasad Rai
All resident of village – Kharaitha P.S. – Parbatta, District- Khagaria.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Chandini Devi Wife of Sri Chandeshwar Rai and D/o Bhubneshwar Sharma
Resident of Village Parsa, P.S. – Jai Nagar, District – Madhubani.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP

For the OP NO. 2 :

Mr. A.K.Thakur, Advocate.

Mr. Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate.

Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate.

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

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

2. Petitioners seek quashing of cognizance order dated

01.08.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani in

Complaint Case No. 246 of 2011 thereby taking cognizance under

Section 498A of I.P.C. against the petitioners.

3. A short fact giving rise to the case is that complainant

after solemnization of her marriage in the month of June, 2010 with
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.38391 of 2014 dt.20-11-2017

2/3

Chandeshwar Kumar Rai (Petitioner No. 4) started living in

matrimonial home but husband and other accused persons further

started making demand Rs. 2 lacs in dowry as well as a motorcycle

and mother-in-law and others used to torture her, ultimately on

26.02.2011 she was ousted from the matrimonial home.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that fact is

that complainant is suffering from mental illness before her marriage,

so the husband has filed a divorce suit which is pending in the Family

Court, Madhubani and the order dated 12.01.2012 of the Family Court

(Annexure-3) indicates that a Medical Board was constituted to

examine her mental condition and was found suffering from Bipolar

Affective Disorder with Psychotic features.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

complainant submits that due to torture, she has been suffering from

such mental illness and there is no material to show that she was

suffering from such disease prior to her marriage and the trial is still

continuing in matrimonial suit.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and on

perusal of record, the Court finds that allegation of making demand

of dowry and torture in that connection is specific only against

petitioners no. 1 and 4, mother-in-law and her husband but not against

petitioner no. 2 and 3, who are father and brother of the husband of
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.38391 of 2014 dt.20-11-2017

3/3

the complainant. There is only casual reference of their names in the

complaint and no specific allegation of assault or making any demand

of dowry is levelled against them. So, order taking cognizance dated

01.08.2011 and subsequent criminal proceeding with respect to

petitioners no. 2 and 3 namely Ballav Prasad Rai, father-in-law and

Jyoti Kumar Rai, brother of the husband, is hereby quashed. However,

as already observed, prima facie case under Section 498A of I.P.C. is

made out against the petitioner no. 1 mother-in-law and petitioner no.

4 the husband, so the criminal proceeding against them will continue

in accordance with law.

(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 *