IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40516 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2012 Thana -BIDUPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR)
1. Ram Nath Pathak Son Of Late Baleshwar Pathak R/O Village-Kaila
Chak, P.S.-Bidupur, Distt-Vaishali
2. Mamta Pathak Wife Of Ram Nath Pathak R/O Village-Kaila Chak,
P.S.-Bidupur, Distt-Vaishali
…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sweta Soni Wife Of Mahesh Kumar Pathak And Daughter Of Sri
Janardan Thakur R/O Loma, P.S.-Tisiauta, Distt-Vaishali
…. …. Opposite Party
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Rina Sinha, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 09-10-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the
Opposite Party No. 2.
The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking
quashing of the order dated 25.05.2013 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Bidupur P.S. Case No.
36/2012 (Tr. No. 3435/2013), by which learned Magistrate
took cognizance under Section 498A/34 and 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40516 of 2013 dt.09-10-2017
2
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in
the present case, the petitioners, being father-in-law and
mother-in-law respectively, are being unnecessarily harassed
on the basis of ornamental allegations made against them in
the first information report. Learned counsel further submits
that, in fact, the efforts taken by this Court by sending this
matter for mediation could not culminate in a fruitful result
because the Opposite Party No. 2 is not cooperating and even
in this Court she has not taken any stand as regards amicable
settlement. He further submits that there is no material in the
case diary which may warrant a view taking a prima facie case
against these petitioners. This Court has perused the
impugned order and the materials available on the record. In
the First Information Report, there is an allegation that Rs.
2,00,000/- was taken in the account of the petitioner no. 1 by
way of dowry, the learned Magistrate has, while taking
cognizance, observed in his order that on perusal of the
records including the original case diary, it appears that there
are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused
persons. Since, the case diary is not available before this Court
and the matter is pending for about four years before this
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40516 of 2013 dt.09-10-2017
3
Court, instead of keeping the matter pending here, this Court
is of the view that the court below should proceed with the
matter and fix a date for framing of charge. These petitioners
shall also be given an opportunity to file an appropriate
application seeking discharge, and if such an application is filed
by the petitioners, the court below shall consider and dispose
of the same considering all the materials and submissions of
the petitioners.
So far as the order taking cognizance is concerned,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order, the
prayer for setting aside the impugned order is refused.
With the above observations and directions, this
application is disposed of.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.10.2017
Transmission 09.10.2017
Date