SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Chinta Devi vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 6 December, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30762 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1066 Year-2010 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur

Chinta Devi Wife of Shankar Dayal sah @ Shankar Dayal Sao Resident of
Village- Mahanth Maniyari , P.S. – Maniyari, District-Muzaffarpur

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Rinku Devi wife of Jai Prakash sah Resident of Village- Mahanth Maniyari,
P.S. – Maniyari, Distt- Muzaffarpur Presently residing with her Father
Shivjee Sah at village- Hari Shankar Maniyari, P.S.- Maniyari, District-
Muzaffar

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hari Kishore Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Sucheta Yadav, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-12-2019

The petitioner has sought for quashment of order

dated 10.07.2015 passed in Trial No.1548 of 2014, arising out of

Complaint Case No.1066 of 2010 whereby the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West, Muzaffarpur, has refused

to discharge the petitioner for the offences under Section 498A

of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned

counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30762 of 2016 dt.06-12-2019
2/4

3. The case of the complainant is that she was

married to the son of the petitioner on 15.06.2005. A child born

in the year 2007 but she was not treated well in the family and

was tortured for demand of dowry and, thereafter, she was

ousted from the matrimonial house.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

is that similar prayer of the husband of the petitioner was

allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc.

No.37128 of 2014 on 07.04.2016, a copy at Annexure-6.

5. A perusal of Annexure-6 would reveal that the

Court had quashed the proceeding by observing as follows:

“Having considered the
relationship of the petitioner and the
duration of marriage, the proceeding
including the order of discharge dated
02.07.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, West, Muzaffarpur, in
Trial No.1548 of 2014 arising out of
Complaint Case No.1066 of 2010 is,
hereby, set aside so far as the petitioner is
concerned.”

6. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the

prayer on the ground that the petitioner was residing at Kolkata

which would be evident from the statement in paragraphs 11 and

12 of the petition. Hence, the case is distinguishable from her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30762 of 2016 dt.06-12-2019
3/4

husband. In paragraphs 11 and 12 the petitioner has stated as

follows:

“11. It is humbly stated
that petitioner is settled at Kolkata
since last 30 years and she is living with
her husband and other sons and
husband of complainant is residing at
village home and he is doing
agricultural work here and petitioner
has got no concern with the husband of
complainant and only because of Jai
Prakash Saw she has been made
accused in this case without any fault
on her part.

12. It is humbly stated that
petitioner is voter of Bangal (Howarh)
from 1995 and she has got her
residence there and her business in
Municipal area Howrah, she is having
Ration Card of West Bengal she is
payiing electricity bill there she has got
shop rent receipt she is having all type
of the documents in proof of her
settlement there with her husband and
other sons.”

7. It is true that plea of alibi cannot be considered

for quashing the order of discharge. However, since on identical

allegation the husband of this petitioner has been discharged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30762 of 2016 dt.06-12-2019
4/4

vide Annexure-6. There is no reason to refuse same relief to the

petitioner. Hence, the impugned order and entire subsequent

proceeding arising out of the impugned order against the

petitioner is hereby quashed and this application is allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J)
Mkr./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.12.2019
Transmission Date 09.12.2019

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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