IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15742 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1141 Year-2013 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
1. Jagdish Raut @ Jagdish Rai Son of Late Khobhari Raut
2. Sushila Devi wife of Jagdish Raut
3. Shailendra Kumar @ Navi Kumar son of Jagdish Raut All are
permanent residents of village + P.O. Dhankaul, Ps – Piprathi,
District – Shivhar, presently residing at P.G. 5 B.R.A. B.U.
Campus , Ps. University, District – Muzaffarpur.
… … Petitioner/s
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Shima Kumari Wife of Shailendra Kumar @ Navi Kumar presently residing
at H/o Hari Nand Rai r/o village Chadhua, ps Kudhani, District – Muzaffarpur.
… … Opposite Party/s
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Manoj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad (APP)
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Date : 28-03-2018
Shri Manoj Kumar Manoj, learned Counsel, appears
for the applicant and Shri Nagendra Prasad, learned A.P.P. appears
for the State. None appears for the complainant, respondent No.2,
in spite of service of notice.
Seeking quashing of a cognizance order dated
21.9.2013, passed by the S.D.J.M. (East) Muzaffarpur and the
entire complaint of Complaint Case No.1141 of 2013, Trial
No.2002 of 2014 registering complaint for the offence under
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and on
perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent wife, it is seen that
the only allegation is with regard to demand of dowry and a
Motorcycle by applicant No.1 Jagdish Raut @ Jagdish Rai, the
father-in-law, and applicant No.3 Shailendra Kumar @ Navi
Kumar, the husband. In the entire body of the complaint, there is
not a single whisper or allegation made with regard to any demand
made by applicant No.2 Smt. Sushila devi, the mother-in-law. The
complaint is primarily against applicant No.1, the father-in-law,
and applicant No.3, the husband. In the complaint, in the absence
of there being specific allegations constituting an offence under
Devi, cognizance taken against her in the matter is not sustainable.
Being satisfied that in the entire complaint there is no
allegation made against applicant No.2, this petition is allowed in
part. The petition of applicant No.2 Smt. Sushila Devi is allowed.
The order dated 21.9.2013 and criminal complaint case and trial
initiated against her is quashed.
As far as applicant Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, there
being allegations against them in the body of the complaint, it is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15742 of 2015 dt.28-03-2018
not a fit case to interfere into the matter at their instance exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
They are at liberty to raise all objections, as are
permissible under law, before the trial court and seek discharge.
With the aforesaid liberty to applicant Nos.1 and 3,
the application stands disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 04.04.2018