SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dhananjay Paswan & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33161 of 2011

1. Dhananjay Paswan Late Basudeo Paswan Vill-Birwar, P.S-Mahishi,Dist-

Saharsa

2. Ram Ratan Paswan Late Prasudeo Paswan Vill-Birwar, P.S-Mahishi,Dist-

Saharsa

3. Sheela Devi Ram Ratan Paswan Vill-Birwar,P.S-Mahishi, Dist-Saharsa

4. Kumdheri Devi Late Basudeo Paswan Vill-Birwar,P.S-Mahishi, Dist-Saharsa

5. Mukesh Paswan Late Basudeo Paswan Vill-Birwar,P.S-Mahishi, Dist-Saharsa

6. Rinku Devi@Rink Kumari Mukesh Paswan Vill-Birwar, P.S-Mahishi,Dist-

Saharsa

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Sarita Devi, wife of Dhananjai Paswan daughter of Bhola Paswan, resident of

vill-Mahisarho, P.S-Mahishi, Distt-Saharsa

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 03-01-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.P.P.

for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33161 of 2011 dt.03-01-2019
2/4

2. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following

relief:

“That, this application on behalf of the petitioners
above name against the order dated 25.01.2010
passed by the learned S D J M Saharsa in
complaint case No. 1666 (C) of 2009 dated
15.10.2009 under Section 498 A of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act where by the cognizance has been taken
against the all petitioners is directed in the
following circumstances.”

3. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the opposite

party no. 2 and the other petitioners are his relatives. The

allegation against them is demand of motorcycle and assault and

also that the petitioner no. 1 was in illicit relationship with another

woman.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in

Matrimonial Case No. 111 of 2009 filed by the petitioner no. 1

against the opposite party no. 2 for restitution of conjugal rights, a

compromise has been entered into between the parties and the case

was disposed off. It was further submitted that in Miscellaneous

Case No. 166 of 2009 filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the

petitioner no. 1, the case was disposed off by order dated

16.11.2011 in view of the amicable settlement between the parties

under which the petitioner no. 1 is paying monthly maintenance of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33161 of 2011 dt.03-01-2019
3/4

Rs. 3,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,500/- to the son,

that is, a total of Rs. 4,500/- per month and the same has been paid

till November, 2018. Learned counsel submitted that once the

Matrimonial and Miscellaneous cases have been compromised on

amicably and mutually agreed terms, the criminal case should also

be closed.

5. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the opposite

party no. 2 were not in a position to dispute the fact of compromise

between the parties, both in the matrimonial case filed by the

petitioner no.1 against the opposite party no. 2 and the

miscellaneous case filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the

petitioner no. 1.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds that a case for exercise of inherent powers of this Court, to

prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to otherwise

secure the ends of justice, has been made out.

7. In view thereof, the application is allowed. The order

dated 25.01.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 1666(C) of 2009

by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act stands quashed.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33161 of 2011 dt.03-01-2019
4/4

8. However, this will be subject to the petitioner no. 1

acting in terms of the compromise entered into between the

parties.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T

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