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