IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.20037 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -916 Year- 2015 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA
Firoze Anwar @ Feroze Anwar S/o late Anwarul Haque R/o Mohalla- –
Moharrampur, Bakarganj, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt -Patna.
…. …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shabian Azhar D/o late Abu Azhar R/o Mohalla- Sibli Colony, New Karimganj,
PS- Civil Line, Distt- Gaya.
…. …. Opposite Parties
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amrendra Prasad, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 16-04-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing the order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with
Complaint Case No.916 of 2015 by which the petitioner has been
summoned to face the prosecution for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.20037 of 2016 dt.16-04-2018
2
Prohibition Act.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the complaint had been instituted by the complainant-
opposite party no.2 with ulterior motive. He submitted that even
before the lodging of the complaint, the petitioner had divorced the
opposite party no.2 by pronouncing ‘talak’ three times on three
different dates. He submitted that just in order to coerce and black
mail the petitioner, a concocted and fabricated allegation have been
made.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the opposite party no.2 submitted that the defence taken by the
petitioner is totally misconceived. He submitted that the complainant
is not a divorcee and being wife of the complainant she had
instituted the case because of the fact that after marriage when she
visited her matrimonial home, she was subjected to cruelty for non-
fulfilment of dowry. The petitioner and his relatives started
pressurizing her to bring Rs.20 lakhs for purchasing a flat at Patna.
She was compelled to hand over her salary to the petitioner and in
four years of marriage, she has given more than Rs. 4 lakhs to her
husband and in-laws under threat and coercion. He submitted that
the complainant has fully supported the allegations made in the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.20037 of 2016 dt.16-04-2018
3
complaint in her statement made on oath and three witnesses
examined on behalf of the complainant have also supported the case
of the complainant in course of inquiry conducted under Section 202
of the Cr. P.C. He submitted that the conduct of the petitioner can
also be appreciated from the fact that despite rejection of his
application of pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court, this Court and
the Apex Court, he has not appeared before the court below after the
issuance of summons.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. From the allegations made in the complaint, a
cognizable offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out.
On perusal of the statement of complainant recorded under Section
200 of the Cr. P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded under
Section 202 of the Cr. P.C., I find that the complainant and her
witnesses have fully supported the allegations made in the
complaint. In that view of the matter, I see no illegality in the
impugned order passed by the court below. So far as the defence
taken by the petitioner is concerned, it can be seen by the court at
appropriate stage in course of trial.
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.20037 of 2016 dt.16-04-2018
4
7. Accordingly, the application being devoid of any
merit, is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.04.2018
Transmission 20.04.2018
Date
