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