SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dwarika Prasad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 August, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34067 of 2011
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF)

1. Dwarika Prasad S/O Late Prasadi Mahto R/O Village – Madarpur, P.S. Hilsa,
District – Nalanda

2. Neelam Devi W/O Dwarika Prasad R/O Village – Madarpur, P.S. Hilsa, District

– Nalanda

3. Pankaj Kumar S/O Dwarika Prasad R/O Village – Madarpur, P.S. Hilsa, District

– Nalanda

4. Swet Lala Kumari W/O Pankaj Kumar R/O Villa ge – Madarpur, P.S. Hilsa,
District – Nalanda

5. Ramjeewan Pd. S/O Late Prasadi Mahto R/O Village – Madarpur, P.S. Hilsa,
District – Nalanda

6. Sanjeeb Kumar S/O Ram Jeewan Prasad R/O Village – Madarpur, P.S. Hilsa,
District – Nalanda

7. Rinku Kumari D/O Sri Sanjeeb Kumar R/O Village – Madarpur, P.S. Hilsa,
District – Nalanda

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Anita Kumari W/O Inderjeet Kumar R/O Village – Nagarnausa, P.S. Nagarnausa,
Distt. Nalanda, At Present Residing At Mohalla Station Road P.S. Hilsa, Distt.
Nalanda

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : None

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 16-08-2018

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. None appears on behalf

of the Opposite parties.

2. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dated

11.10.2007 passed by SDJM Hilsa, Nalanda in Complaint Case No. 269(C) of

2007, thereby taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A, 323 and

494 IPC.

3. The facts of the complaint case lies in brief compass. The
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34067 of 2011 dt.16-08-2018 2

complainant is Anita Kumari, wife of one of the accused Indrajeet Kumar, and

she alleges that her husband, father- in-law, mother- in- law, brother- in- law and

other family members used to torture and harass her after her marriage

solemnised on 2.6.1998 and even after she gave birth to a male child. It is

alleged that all accused persons conspired for last six months and consequently

on 24.2.2007 her husband Indrajeet Kumar married with another girl in Sun

Temple and both are living together. The specific accusation against the

petitioners is that they played the role of organizers by making preparation and

participation in second marriage solemnized by her husband.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits

that the petitioners are not family members of husband of the complainant, they

are outsiders and only accusation leveled against them is of playing the role of

middle man and participation in the second marriage performed by her husband

in a temple. There is no whisper that any demand of dowry was made and in that

connection harassed her. Further contention is that other similarly situated co-

accused namely Shanti Devi others also filed quashing application before this

Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 55832 of 2007 which was allowed by a coordinate

Bench of this Court by order dated 7.12.2010.

5. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the record

the Court finds that only specific accusation against the petitioners is of making

arrangement for solemnization of second marriage of Indrajeet Kumar

(complainant’s husband) in a temple with another girl. However, there is no

accusation that they did any overt act or even assisted the husband in torturing

the complainant in relation to demand of dowry or tortured her leading to such

injury physical or mental of such a nature likely to compel the complainant to

commit suicide or any grave injury or danger to live or health was caused to her
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34067 of 2011 dt.16-08-2018 3

as a result of that torture physical or mental. However, participation and making

arrangement of second marriage does not attract any ingredients of the offence

of Section 494 IPC against the petitioners though that accusation is specific

against Indrajeet Kumar, husband of the complainant.

So, prima- facie no offence under Sections 498A, as well as 494 or 323 IPC is

made out against the petitioners.

6. Having reached to the conclusion, as stated in the preceding

paragraph, the impugned order dated 11.10.2007 passed by SDJM Hilsa,

Nalanda in Complaint Case No. 269(C) of 2007, taking cognizance of the

offence under Sections 498A, 323 and 494 IPC with respect to the petitioners as

well as subsequent criminal proceeding against them is hereby quashed.

7. The application thus stands allowed.

(Arun Kumar, J.)

Snkumar/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.08.2018
Transmission 18.08.2018
Date

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh