IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46496 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -153 Year- 2012 Thana -PARSABAZAR District- PATNA
Amit Kumar, S/o Rajkishore Prasad, Resident of Village – Etwarpur, P.O. –
Kurthaul, P.S. – Parsa Bazar, District – Patna.
…. …. Petitioner/s
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Neha Devi @ Rinki Devi, Wife of Jyoti Ranjan Kumar, Daughter of Ramanand
Singh, at present resident of Mirchaiya Mandir, Budh Marg, Patna Gaya Road, P.S.
– Kotwali, P.O. – G.P.O., District – Patna.
…. …. Opposite Party/s
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurav Govind, Adv.
For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mrs. Sharda Kumari, APP.
For the Opposite Party no.2 : Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad, Adv.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 as also learned APP for the State.
Petitioner, in the present case, is younger brother of the
husband of the informant-opposite party no.2, who is seeking
quashing of the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons
passed in GR 5623 of 2012/Tr. 2322 of 2012, arising out of Parsa
Bazar P.S. Case No.153 of 2012, by which the learned Magistrate has
Prohibition Act and issued summons against the accused persons
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.46496 of 2014 dt.20-12-2017 2
including the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present case arises out of Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.153 of 2012
which was lodged on 11.11.2012 by improving upon the allegations
which the informant had earlier made while lodging Parsa Bazar P.S.
Case No.10 of 2010 on 01.02.2010 which was registered under
reading the fardebyan of the informant-opposite party no.2 in the said
case which is Annexure-2 to the present application that on earlier
occasion there is not even whisper of allegation against the petitioner
who is only younger brother of the husband of the informant-opposite
party no.2. It is submitted that the marriage is of the year 2007 and the
allegations in the FIR dated 01.02.2010 (Annexure-2) was that
immediately after sometime of marriage the husband and in-laws of
the informant-opposite party no.2 were demanding dowry and because
of non-fulfilment of demand the accused in said case were committing
certain act of torture against the informant-opposite party no.2. The
allegations have only been made against the husband and in-laws in
Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.10 of 2010, but while making same
allegations at this stage in Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.153 of 2012 the
informant has added the name of this petitioner also and the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.46496 of 2014 dt.20-12-2017 3
allegations have been made that husband, devar (petitioner) and in-
laws were involved in demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- and a
motorcycle etc. as dowry. Learned counsel submits that on the face of
it, the allegations are false and baseless and it is a case of mala fide
prosecution of the petitioner as even on perusal of the FIR as
contained in Annexure-1 it would appear that the allegations
involving this petitioner saying that husband, Devar and in-laws all
together beaten up the informant and fractured her one finger about
three months back are vague and omnibus. The allegations are
ornamental in nature and thurst of the allegations is against the
husband and in-laws as it is alleged that they refused to take the
informant to her sasural residence/home. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is separate in mess and business
and he has no concern with the informant-opposite party no.2.
On the other hand, learned counsel representing the
informant-opposite party no.2 submits that no illegality or infirmity
has been committed by learned Magistrate while passing the order
taking cognizance because it has been passed on the basis of the
supplementary charge sheet submitted by the police. Learned counsel
submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the order taking
cognizance is not required to be interfered with.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.46496 of 2014 dt.20-12-2017 4
perused the records. On a bare reading of the FIR, as contained in
Annexure-2, it appears that there is no whisper of allegation against
this petitioner, therefore, on 01.02.2010 when the said FIR was lodged
there was no allegation either of demand of dowry or committing any
act of torture against this petitioner. In the subsequent FIR lodged
after two years the name of this petitioner has also been added and
allegations have been made that he was also involved with others
since 2007 in demanding the dowry and was also involved in
commission of the act of torture. This Court can easily come to a
conclusion that it is a case of mala fide prosecution with an intention
to involve each and every family member of family of the husband.
The allegations are thus not prima-facie believable and appear to have
been purposely leveled with vague and ornamental kind of statements
against this petitioner who is the younger brother of the husband. The
allegations against him are highly improbable and the fact that there
was no whisper of allegation against him in the FIR lodged on
01.02.2010 (Annexure-2) clealry indicates his false implication in the
I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the
prosecution of the present petitioner is only an abuse of the process of
the Court and it would be in the interest of justice to save him from
further harassment by quashing of the order taking cognizance and
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.46496 of 2014 dt.20-12-2017 5
issuance of summons in so far as it relates to him.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the
impugned order taking cognizance and issuance of summmons as
against the present petitioner is quashed and the application is allowed
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Uploading Date 23.12.2017