Pravej Khan & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 December, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3022 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2 Year- 2014 Thana -AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District-
AURANGABAD

1. Pravej Khan Son of Md. Kasim

2. Sahin Praveen @ Munni, Wife of Pravej Khan Both residents of village Sataua,
P.S. – Giriyak, District – Nalanda.

…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Nigar Naz Wife of Md. Naushad Khan, D/o Rustam Ali Khan, Resident o f
Ansar Nagar, Masjid Gali, Nawada, P.S. – Nawada, District Nawada at present
residing at Kalami Mohalla, Aurangabad, P.S. District – Aurangabad.

…. …. Opposite Parties
with

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4409 of 2015
Arising out of PS.Case No. -2 Year- 2014 Thana -AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District-

AURANGABAD

1. Master Jamaiyat Hussain @ Md. Jamiyat Hussain Khan S/o Late Nabi Bux
Khan

2. Julekha Khatoon @ Julaikha Khatoon W/o Master Jamaiyat Hussain @ Md.
Jamiyat Hussain Khan, Both are residents of Mohalla.-Ansar Nagar, Masjid
Gali, P.S. Nawada, Distt.-Nawada
…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Nigar Naz Wife of Md. Nausad Khan, D/o Rustam Ali Khan Residents of –
Ansar Nagar, Masjid Gali, Nawada, P.S-Nawada, Distt.-Nawada, at present
residing at Kalami Mohalla, Aurangabad, P.S+Distt.-Aurangabad.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

(In Cr.Misc. No.3022 of 2015)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Asha Devi, APP
(In Cr.Misc. No.4409 of 2015)
For the Petitioners : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 08-12-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned APP for the State.

Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.3022 of 2015 dt.08-12-2017

2 /4

2. The same impugned order, i.e., the cognizance order

dated 04.12.2014, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Aurangabad in

Complaint Case No.2 of 2014, Trial No.2229 of 2014 is challenged by

petitioners of both the quashing applications, so these two quashing

applications are disposed of by the common judgment.

3. The petitioners seek quashing of the cognizance order

dated 04.12.2014, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Aurangabad in

Complaint Case No.2 of 2014, Trial No.2229 of 2014 whereby the

learned S.D.J.M., Aurangabad has taken cognizance of the offence

under Sections 498A, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as

under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons

to stand trial in the case.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the case is that accused

persons started making demand of further dowry after solemnization

of the marriage of the complainant with Md. Naushad Khan. The

marriage was solemnized on 16.02.2012. The accused persons were

making further demand of Rs.2,00,000/- cash and one Alto Car and all

used to torture her in that connection and it is alleged that on

27.08.2012 her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Nanad and

brother-in-law all assaulted her, snatched her jewelleries and kicked

her out of the matrimonial home.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.3022 of 2015 dt.08-12-2017

3 /4

petitioners of Cr. Misc. No.3022 of 2015 are married Nanad and her

husband, who reside in Kolkata as the brother-in-law of the

complainant is an employee of railway and there is only general and

omnibus allegation against these petitioners and places reliance to the

decision of Geeta Mehrotra Anr. vs. State of U.P. Anr., reported

in 2013 (1) PLJR 10 (SC).

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

submits that there is specific allegation against the father-in-law,

mother-in-law and the Nanad and refers the judgment of the Geeta

Mehrotra (supra) case and submits that the ratio decided in the case is

that FIR disclosing mere casual reference of the names of the family

members in a matrimonial dispute without any allegation of their

active involvement in the offence, in such situation there is no

sufficient material for taking cognizance; whereas in the present case

there is specific allegation against all the petitioners except the

Nandosi.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal

of the records, the Court finds that the names of Pravej Khan, Sahin

Praveen, the married Nanad and her husband have been mentioned as

casual reference and the complainant in her examination on SA also

admits that the husband of the Nanad is a railway employee and lives

in Kolkata, so mere casual reference of the names of these two
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.3022 of 2015 dt.08-12-2017

4 /4

petitioners do not make out a prima facie case under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code, so the criminal proceeding against them

inclusive of the cognizance order dated 04.12.2014, passed in

Complaint Case No.2 of 2014, Trial No.2229 of 2014, pending in the

court of learned S.D.J.M., Aurangabad is set aside only with respect

to these two petitioners.

8. Hence Cr. Misc. No.3022 of 2015 stands allowed.

9. However, as far as rest two petitioners of Cr. Misc.

No.4409 of 2015, the father-in-law and mother-in-law are concerned,

as there is specific allegation of their active participation in making

demand of dowry reflected from the statement made by the

complainant in her examination on SA; so there is sufficient material

to take cognizance against these two, so criminal proceeding will

continue against them.

10. Accordingly, Cr. Misc. No.4409 of 2015 stands

dismissed.

(Arun Kumar, J.)

S.Kumar/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.12.2017
Transmission 15.12.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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