SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dhirendra Kuwar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 15 November, 2017

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48133 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -131 Year- 2012 Thana -BASOPATTI District- MADHUBANI

1. Dhirendra Kuwar Son of Mahesh Kuwar

2. Mahesh Kuwar Son of Late Arjun Kuwar

3. Siya Devi Wife of Mahesh Kuwar

4. Rabindra Kuwar Son of Mahesh Kumar (Dewar) R/o village- Bajpatti Bangaon,
P.S.- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi
…. …. Petitioners

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anju Singh Wife of Dhirendra Kuwar daughter of Mahendra Singh R/o village-
Madhiya, P.S. Basopatti, District- Madhubani
…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Md. Nazir Ansari, APP

Date: 15-11-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the

order taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated

16.08.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Madhubani in

connection with Basopatti P.S. Case No. 131 of 2012, G.R.

No. 2501/2012 under Section 498A and 494/34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

The petitioner no. 1 is the husband whereas

petitioner nos. 2 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law

respectively, and petitioner no. 4 is the elder brother of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48133 of 2014 dt.15-11-2017


husband of the informant-opposite party No. 2.

In this case, after investigation police has

submitted a charge-sheet and in course of investigation it has

revealed that the petitioner no. 1 has married to an another

lady because no child was born out of the wedlock between

petitioner no. 1 and the informant-opposite party no. 2.

A perusal of the statements made in the complaint

petition which is the basis of registration of the F.I.R., it

appears that there are allegations against all these petitioners

that they treated the informant-opposite party no. 2 with

cruelty and tortured her as also she was thrown out of her

matrimonial house because she was unable to give birth to a

child. The allegation is that all these petitioners had

participated in the alleged occurrence.

In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to

interfere with the order taking cognizance. Accordingly, this

application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)

Uploading Date 16.11.2017
Transmission Date 16.11.2017

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