SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Firoze Anwar @ Feroze Anwar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 April, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.20037 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -916 Year- 2015 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA

Firoze Anwar @ Feroze Anwar S/o late Anwarul Haque R/o Mohalla- –
Moharrampur, Bakarganj, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt -Patna.

…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Shabian Azhar D/o late Abu Azhar R/o Mohalla- Sibli Colony, New Karimganj,
PS- Civil Line, Distt- Gaya.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amrendra Prasad, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 16-04-2018

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) has been filed by the

petitioner for quashing the order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with

Complaint Case No.916 of 2015 by which the petitioner has been

summoned to face the prosecution for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.20037 of 2016 dt.16-04-2018
2

Prohibition Act.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the complaint had been instituted by the complainant-

opposite party no.2 with ulterior motive. He submitted that even

before the lodging of the complaint, the petitioner had divorced the

opposite party no.2 by pronouncing ‘talak’ three times on three

different dates. He submitted that just in order to coerce and black

mail the petitioner, a concocted and fabricated allegation have been

made.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

the opposite party no.2 submitted that the defence taken by the

petitioner is totally misconceived. He submitted that the complainant

is not a divorcee and being wife of the complainant she had

instituted the case because of the fact that after marriage when she

visited her matrimonial home, she was subjected to cruelty for non-

fulfilment of dowry. The petitioner and his relatives started

pressurizing her to bring Rs.20 lakhs for purchasing a flat at Patna.

She was compelled to hand over her salary to the petitioner and in

four years of marriage, she has given more than Rs. 4 lakhs to her

husband and in-laws under threat and coercion. He submitted that

the complainant has fully supported the allegations made in the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.20037 of 2016 dt.16-04-2018
3

complaint in her statement made on oath and three witnesses

examined on behalf of the complainant have also supported the case

of the complainant in course of inquiry conducted under Section 202

of the Cr. P.C. He submitted that the conduct of the petitioner can

also be appreciated from the fact that despite rejection of his

application of pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court, this Court and

the Apex Court, he has not appeared before the court below after the

issuance of summons.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6. From the allegations made in the complaint, a

cognizable offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out.

On perusal of the statement of complainant recorded under Section

200 of the Cr. P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded under

Section 202 of the Cr. P.C., I find that the complainant and her

witnesses have fully supported the allegations made in the

complaint. In that view of the matter, I see no illegality in the

impugned order passed by the court below. So far as the defence

taken by the petitioner is concerned, it can be seen by the court at

appropriate stage in course of trial.

Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.20037 of 2016 dt.16-04-2018
4

7. Accordingly, the application being devoid of any

merit, is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.04.2018
Transmission 20.04.2018
Date

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh