SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 24 April, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.31461 of 2011
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -78 Year- 2011 Thana -Complaint District- BHAGALPUR

1. Ashok Kumar Singh son of Late Raj Narayan Singh @ Raja Babu

2. Bipin Kumar Singh son of Ashok Kumar Singh (deleted vide order dated
20.12.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 53586 of 2013)
Both residents of village Jhapania, P.S. Bounsi, District Banka

3. Rita Devi wife of Ashok Kumar Singh D/o of Jai Krishna Prasad Singh

4. Shambhu Kumar Singh @ Shambhu Singh, Son of Narayan Singh.

5. Ruby Devi @ Ruby Singh, Wife of Shambhu Kumar D/o Arun Prasad Singh,
All residents of Village Jhapania, P.S. Bounsi, District Banka

6. Jai Krishna Singh Son of Ram Narayan Singh

7. Pushpa Devi wife of Jai Krishna Singh Son of Ram Narayan Prasad Singh,
Both residents of Village Sadpur, P.S. Panjwara, District Banka.

…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sweta Bharti wife of Bipin Kumar Singh, D/o Dr. Lallan Prasad Singh,
resident of village Rajendra Colony Punana Pratap Nagar, P.S. Nawgachhia,
District Bhagalpur
…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : None

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 24-04-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the

order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Nawgachhia taking cognizance against the petitioners in

Complaint Case No. C78 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 498A

and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31461 of 2011 dt.24-04-2017

2/3

complainant and the opposite party no. 2 were married on 15.02.2008,

but after two days of marriage she returned to her paternal home. Soon

after Duragaman on 12.12.2008, the accused persons started torturing

the complainant and demanding dowry, forcing her to return to her

parental house.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

thrust of accusation is against petitioner no. 2, the husband of the

complainant, who has however since died on 07.12.2011. It is further

stated that the opposite party no. 2 has solemnized re-marriage on

16.12.2015 with one Nirmal Kumar Singh son of Sri Sushil Prasad

Singh, resident of Village Bishanpur, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka. The

opposite party no. 2 has also not been taking interest in prosecuting

the present matter.

5. Learned APP for the State appears and has been

heard. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as

well as learned APP for the State, this Court finds merit in the petition.

The thrust of accusation in the complaint has been made against the

husband of the opposite party no. 2, who has since died. The

accusations are general and omnibus in nature against the remaining

petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 who are father-in-law, mother-in-law,

cousin brother-in-law, the latter’s wife, Nanad and Nandosi of the

complainant respectively.

7. It is well known that complaints of the present
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31461 of 2011 dt.24-04-2017

3/3

nature are routinely filed implicating various family members and

distant relatives of the husband of the complainant. In absence of the

husband, it would be abuse of process of the court to allow continuance

of the criminal prosecution against the remaining petitioners against

whom the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.

8. It is a matter of record that the opposite party no. 2

has not been appearing in this case as evident from the orders dated

01.04.2014 and 30.06.2014 passed at the admission stage and she has

also not appeared when the matter is called today at the hearing stage.

It is therefore clear that the complainant has lost interest in pursuing

the matter, more so when she is said to have solemnized second

marriage with Nirmal Kumar Singh.

9. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order

dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Nawgachhia taking cognizance against the petitioners in Complaint

Case No. C78 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 498A and 323 of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is

hereby quashed and the petition stands allowed.

(Vikash Jain, J)
B.T/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading 27.04.2017
Date
Transmission 27.04.2017
Date

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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