SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Balmatia Devi & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 28 July, 2017

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34293 of 2014 dt.28-07-2017

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34293 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -4 Year- 2014 Thana -RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- PATNA

1. Balmatia Devi W/O Amir Lal Yadav @ Amir Lal Singh

2. Amir Lal Yadav @ Amir Lal Singh Son of Shyam Lal Yadav Both resident of
village Sheikhpura, Police Station Ram Krishan Nagar, District- Patna.

…. …. Petitioners

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rubi Devi, wife of Suaj Yadav, resident of village-Dhelwan, Police Station
Ram Krishan Nagar, District-Patna.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP

Date: 28-07-2017
This application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has

been filed to quash the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class in Ramkrishna Nagar P.S.Case No.04 of

2014 whereunder the Magistrate finding prima-facie case for the

offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 498A/34 of the IPC

summoned the petitioners.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and APP for

the State.

3. The Opposite Party No.2 in spite of personal service

of notice did not appear to oppose the quashing application. Both the

petitioners are parents of the husband of informant Opposite Party

No.2. None of them are named in the FIR. The case has been

registered only against the husband with specific allegation that in the

night of 13.01.2014 her husband threw boiled milk on her person
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34293 of 2014 dt.28-07-2017

causing burn injuries. The marriage of informant was performed in

the year 2002 and from the said wedlock she has three children. She

had lodged a police vide Ramkrishnanagar P.S.Case No.95 of 2010

for the offence under Sections 498A, 323/34 of the IPC. The husband

of the informant had also filed a divorce case no.287 of 2013 before

Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya. After institution of said case, the

ifnorant had lodged the present case only against the husband with

specific allegation. It appears that the name of these petitioners

appeared in supervision of Dy.S.P. which is against the material on

record as submitted by his learned counsel. The criminal prosecution

of these two petitioners in such circumstance would amount to abuse

of the process of the Court as the main grievance of the informant is

against the husband. There is nothing against these petitioners on

record particularly the allegation of torture and assault.

4. In view of above facts the criminal prosecution of

these petitioners cannot be sustained. The order taking cognizance so

far these petitioners are concerned is quashed and this criminal

miscellaneous application is allowed.

(Sanjay Kumar, J)


Uploading Date 01.08.2017
Transmission 01.08.2017

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