IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3887 of 2015
Arising Out of Case No.-26018(C) Year-2014 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna

1. Dr. Rajesh Paswan son of Ram Lochan Sharan

2. Ram Lochan Sharan son of Late Hemant Paswan

3. Smt. Niru Devi wife of Ram Lochan Sharan
All resident of village- Azad Chauk, Gangjala, P.S. District- Saharsa

4. Diwakar [email protected] Prasad son of Ram Swaroop Paswan

5. Rinku [email protected] Kumari wife of Diwakar [email protected] Prasad
Both R/o village- Chausa, Singheshwar Asthan, P.S and District-
Madhepura.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Smt. Maheshwar Kumar Puja Wife of Dr. Rajesh Paswan D/o Maheshwar
Kumar, R/o Village- N.T.P.C Appartment, Phase-1, Ashiyana Nagar, P.S-
Rajeev Nagar, District- Patna.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Adity Hansaria, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2019

Heard Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel along

with Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned

APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section

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

relief:

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3887 of 2015 dt.07-05-2019
2/5

“That this application is being for setting aside the
order dated 28.8.2014 passed in Complaint Case No.
26018 (C) of 2014 whereby and whereunder
cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for
the offence under Sections 498A, Section323, Section504 of the Indian
Penal Code and issued summons by Smt. Sangeeta
Rani, J.M. 1st Class, Patna.”

3. The allegation against the petitioners in Complaint

Case No. 26018 (C) of 2014, filed by the opposite party no. 2, is of

torture, demand of dowry and turning her out the matrimonial

home. The opposite party no. 2, is the wife of petitioner no. 1, and

the other petitioners are relatives of petitioner no. 1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

there is general and omnibus allegation against all the family

members and the complaint case has been filed with mala fide

intention. It was submitted that, at best, it is the petitioner no. 1,

being the husband of opposite party no. 2, who can be held

responsible for any differences or maltreatment to his wife, but

with regard to the other petitioners, only because they are

relatives of petitioner no. 1, making them accused is clearly an

abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel submitted that

the sister and the brother-in-law of petitioner no. 1 have no role in

the matrimonial dispute and, thus, the Court may grant them

indulgence. It was further submitted that the petitioners no. 4 and 5

were not living in Saharsa.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3887 of 2015 dt.07-05-2019
3/5

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2

submitted that from the allegations made in the complaint, it is

clear that the same are quite natural and furthermore, the

petitioners no. 4 and 5 are living in the matrimonial house of the

opposite party no. 2 and the allegation is that because of their

interference, the atrocities on the opposite party no. 2 were

aggravated. It was submitted that there was interference on the part

of the petitioners no. 4 and 5 in the matter of demand of dowry

from the father of the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel

submitted that the matter deteriorated when the opposite party no.

2 gave birth to a female child. Learned counsel submitted that at

the time of seeking bail in the present case before the High Court,

the same was allowed on the condition that the petitioner had

agreed before the Court to take the opposite party no. 2 along with

the minor child and to keep them with full dignity and honour.

However, when she went to the matrimonial home, she found that

the petitioner no. 1 had married another woman. It was submitted

that the same is also based on official documents. The attention of

the Court in this regard was drawn to the information received

under the Right to SectionInformation Act by the opposite party no. 2

from the office of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Purnea under

memo no. 918 dated 04.04.2018 with which copies of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3887 of 2015 dt.07-05-2019
4/5

employee information and declaration of assets and liabilities of

petitioner no. 1 have been furnished, which have been filled up

and signed by him, and in which the spouse name is shown as

Supriya Shalini and not the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel

further informed the Court that, as of now, trial has begun and two

prosecution witnesses have already been examined and from the

defence side, out of five, two witnesses have been examined

6. Learned APP submitted that from the allegations, the

sequence of events are quite natural and the role of all the persons,

including father-in-law, mother-in-law and the sister and her

husband appeared to be natural, inasmuch as, they are the

guardians of the house and when the married sister also lives in the

house of her parents, there is bound to be interference by her. It

was submitted that all the more reason that the petitioners should

face trial, as it is only at that stage they can prove their innocence

by adducing evidence and bringing on record materials in their

favour. Learned counsel submitted that for the purpose of taking

cognizance, which is under challenge in the present application,

the Court has only to see as to whether, prima facie, on the basis of

materials before the Court, the offence is made out. It was

submitted that based on the averments made in the complaint and

statement of the witnesses examined, cognizance has been taken.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3887 of 2015 dt.07-05-2019
5/5

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

does not find any ground to interfere in the order impugned taking

cognizance. Moreover, as the trial has progressed substantially and

the prosecution has closed it evidence and even from the side of

the defence, two out of five witnesses have already been examined

are further reasons for the Court to be persuaded not to interfere in

the matter at this stage.

8. Needless to indicate that the parties during trial have

full opportunity to prove their case by bringing on record relevant

materials and adduce evidence in their favour.

9. For reasons aforesaid, the application stands

dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T