Rabindra Gupta vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 27 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.50748 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -795 Year- 2013 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
SASARAM (RO HTAS)

Rabindra Gupta Son of Ramadhar Sah Resident of village-
Raghunathpur, P.S – Natwar, District – Rohtas.

…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Hewanti Devi Wife of Rabindra Gupta D/o Bandhu Sah Resident of
village- Karhansi P.S- Natwar, District- Rohtas
…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dineshwar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 27-11-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel representing the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 as

well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking

quashing of the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1s t Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas in Complaint

Case No. 795/2013, by which cognizance of the offence under

section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and

petitioner has been summoned.

A perusal of the complaint petition would show that

there are allegations of demand of dowry and on non-fulfillment
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.50748 of 2014 dt.27-11-2017

2

of the same certain acts of torture have also been alleged. It

transpires from the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner that he is not willing to keep the complainant-Opposite

Party No. 2, the wife. According to him, the present case has

been filed by the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 after the

husband of the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 had already

filed Matrimonial Case No. 278/2012 under Section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 submits that his client would

be ready and willing to live with the petitioner if he keeps her

with full dignity and care.

So far as the present case is concerned, in the facts

and circumstances where there are allegations against the

petitioner, I do not find it a fit case to interfere with the order

taking cognizance and issuance of summon. This should,

however, not be construed as a bar to the parties in the matter

of settlement outside the Court, if they so desire.

This application is dismissed, accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.11.2017
Transmission Date 28.11.2017

Leave a Comment

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