SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arjun Singh And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 11 July, 2019

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
… … Petitioner/s

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

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

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

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


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


“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

term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.”

The explanation to the section explains the term


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)

Uploading Date 15.07.2019
Transmission Date 15.07.2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation