IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6337 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2013 Thana- PARSABAZAR District- Patna
1. Arjun Singh son of Late Sheolal Singh
2. Madhuri Devi, wife of Arjun Singh
3. Raj Kumar Singh, son of Arjun Singh
4. Pinki Devi wife of Raj Kumar Singh
All are residents of Village Bhergawan, P.O. Jatia, P.S. Gaurichak District
Patna. At present Beldarichak, P.S. Parsa Bazar, District Patna
5. Shiv Kumar S/o Arjun Singh resident of Village Bhergawan, P.O. Jatia, P.S.
Gaurichak District Patna. At present Beldarichak, P.S. Parsa Bazar, District
Patna
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Riya Sinha D/o Sheo Kumar Village-Mahulli, P.S. -Parsabazar, Dist.-Patna
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Ansural Haque, App
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-07-2019
On the last occasion the parties expressed their desire
for conciliation. Hence, by order dated 09.05.2019 co-accused Shiv
Kumar, who is husband of Opposite Party No.2 Riya Sinha was also
impleaded as petitioner No.5 though he was not petitioner in this
quashing matter.
2. On persuasion of the Court, the spouse had gone
together. They are physically present in Court. Wife submits that
she is happy in her in-laws house. However, the husband is not ready
to keep her on the pretext that the bouncers of the wife always
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6337 of 2015 dt.11-07-2019
2/4
attempt to assault him.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashment of order dated 03.10.2013 and 20.01.2014 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in connection with Parsa Bazar
P.S. Case No.79 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.2533 of 2013,
whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections
498A/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the SectionDowry
Prohibition Act against petitioner Raj Kumar Singh and co-accused
Shiv Kumar, who is husband of the informant, and is not petitioner in
this quashing matter though for the purpose of settlement of dispute
he was added on the order of the Court as petitioner No.5. However,
he does not want quashment of proceeding against him.
4. At the time of cognizance order aforesaid,
investigation against petitioner Arjun Singh, petitioner Madhuri Devi
and Petitioner Pinki Devi was pending. On submission of charge
sheet against these petitioners again cognizance order was passed
against them on 19.04.2014 which is also under challenge.
5. According to complaint petition, the complainant
was married on 25.02.2011 with accused No.1 Shiv Kumar. When
she went to her sasural, the accused persons started physical and
mental torture against her for non-fulfillment of demand of rupees
ten lacs to purchase a tractor. On expression of inability to pay such
a huge amount, the accused persons started commission of assault
and other torture against her. Further allegation is that on one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6337 of 2015 dt.11-07-2019
3/4
occasion the accused persons asked her to undergo forceful abortion
for which she was not ready and for that also she was being abused
and assaulted. On 14.04.2014 she was finally expelled from the
matrimonial house.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by
supplementary affidavit the petitioner have brought on the record the
document of family partition between the husband and his full
brother on 09.05.2012. As such, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are already
separate from the husband of the complainant and have no concerned
with their affairs. Moreover, the allegation is general and omnibus
against the petitioners and these days there is growing tendency to
rope all the family members whenever dispute arises between the
spouse.
7. The case-diary would reveal that other witnesses
have also supported the prosecution allegation against the petitioners.
Subsequent partition of property with the brother of the husband
cannot be considered to disbelieve the prosecution allegation
especially when the law does not exonerate the criminal liability only
due to partition between the co-accused.
8. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reads as
follows:
“498A. Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6337 of 2015 dt.11-07-2019
4/4term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.”
The explanation to the section explains the term
cruelty.
9. Since the petitioners are relatives of the husband and
there is allegation of treatment with cruelty to the informant for non-
fulfillment of their illegal demand and the allegation is supported by
other witnesses also. Prima facie material is there to proceed against
the petitioners also. The law does not say so that in each and every
case false implication should be presumed. That can be meticulously
examined in course of the trial.
10. Hence, there is no merit in this application.
Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(Birendra Kumar, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.07.2019
Transmission Date 15.07.2019
