SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amit Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 20 December, 2017

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
Versus

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

Appearance :

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
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 20-12-2017

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

taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 379 and

325/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry

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

Sections 498A, 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code read

with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is pointed out by

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

FIR (Annexure-1).

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

accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

Arvind/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 23.12.2017
Transmission 23.12.2017
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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh