IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2280 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2016 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya

1. Brajesh Kumar and Ors Shri Suresh Prasad Village- Hathiyara

2. Suresh Prasad @ Suresh Singh Pujari ji Village- Hathiyara

3. Shanti Devi Suresh Prasad All resident of Village- Hathiyara PS- Devkund
Dist- Aurangabad

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar and Anr Bihar

2. Kaushal Kumar Gautam Late Arjun Prasad Resident of village- Kamalpur
PS- Belaganj District- Gaya at present Gautam Niwas Nandlal Kothi
Chhotki Nawada PS- Delha District- Gaya

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Chandra Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Upendra Kumar (App 67)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-11-2019

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated

09.06.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st

Class, Gaya in connection with Complaint Case No. 318 of

2016 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance

for the offences under Sections 494, 498A, 323, 380 and 504

of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

The brief facts of this case is that the marriage of

sister of the complainant solemnized with Brajesh Kumar,

petitioner No.1 on 16.09.2009 and as a gift Rs. 3 Lac Cash

along with ornaments of Rs. 1 Lac along with a Motorcycle

and other articles have been given to the petitioners. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2280 of 2019 dt.18-11-2019
2/5

further alleged that the petitioners were torturing the sister

of complainant for demand of more dowry upon which the

sister of the complainant went to her parental house. In the

meantime, the petitioner No.1 joined a service in GAMON

INDIA and on the advice of his family members, he

performed second marriage with one Asha Kumari on

07.03.2015 and started pressurizing on the sister of the

complainant for divorce. Thereafter, the sister of the

complainant filed a complaint case against the petitioners

which is pending before the A.C.J.M.-IV, Gaya. Further it is

alleged that on 28.01.2016, the petitioner No.1 forcibly

entered into the house of complainant to take signature of

his sister on the divorce paper by using brutal force, for

which again another complaint case being Complaint Case

No. 318 of 2016 has been filed against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any

offence. In fact, these petitioners have falsely been

implicated in this case in two others case for the same set of

facts. It is further submitted that in view of the mandate of

Article 20 of the Constitution of India, two criminal cases

cannot be proceeded against any person for the same cause
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2280 of 2019 dt.18-11-2019
3/5

of action. Hence, the impugned order dated 09.06.2016

passed in Complaint Case No. 318 of 2016 passed by the

learned J.M.-1st, Class by which the learned Magistrate has

wrongly taken cognizance against the petitioners under

Section 494, 498A, 323, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal

Code and the same is fit to be quashed.

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has

opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and submitted that the learned Magistrate has

rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners vide order

dated 09.06.2016 in complaint case No. 318 of 2016. It is

further submitted that there are two occurrences took place

on different dates and places for which the petitioners have

been prosecuted. The first occurrence took place on

15.08.2009 for which Complaint Case No. 359 of 2014 has

been registered against the petitioners whereas the second

occurrence took place on two occasions i.e. 07.03.2015 and

28.01.2016 for which Complaint Case No. 318 of 2016 has

been registered against the petitioners in which the learned

Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance on the basis of

material and evidence available on record vide order dated

09.06.2016 under Sections 494, 498A, 323, 380 and 504 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2280 of 2019 dt.18-11-2019
4/5

the Indian Penal Code against petitioner No.1 only and

under Sections 498(A), 323, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal

Code against the petitioner No.2 and 3 only, which is under

challenge. Therefore, the order impugned does not require

any interference of this Court in exercise of powers

conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..

Considering the submissions advanced by the

both the parties, this Court is of the view that the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate while considering the materials

available on record has found prima facie case against the

petitioners and has rightly taken cognizance under Section

494, 498A, 323, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code

against the petitioner No.1 and Sections 498(A), 323, 380

and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner Nos. 2

and 3 vide order dated 09.06.2016 in connection with

Complaint Case No. 318 of 2016 and the same does not

require any interference of this Court.

So far as mandate of Article 20 of the

Constitution of India is concerned, the essence of Article 20

does not come into play in this case as two complaint cases

have been lodged against the petitioners for different set of

facts and evidences which is crystal clear from the bare
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2280 of 2019 dt.18-11-2019
5/5

perusal of the two complaint cases in which different dates

of occurrence has been mentioned.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous

application is dismissed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)
Brajesh/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date