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