IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19153 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27957 Year-2014 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna

1. Gauri Shankar Singh son of Kedar Prasad Singh

2. Anumala Devi wife of Gauri Shankar Singh, Both resident of
village/Mohalla- Shibpuri, P.S.- Birpur, District- Supaul

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Vidya Singh wife of Rajeev Kumar Singh, son of Sri Madan Kumar Singh,
Resident of Flat No. 404, Gauri Apartment, Jagdeo Path, P.S. Shastri Nagar,
District- Patna. At present R/O W.E. 11, Koshi Colony, Police Station-
Birpur, District- Supaul

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate
Md. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anuradha Singh App

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-07-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are parents of the husband of

Opposite Party No.2. They have sought for quashment of the

cognizance order dated 14.11.2014 passed in Complaint Case

No.27957(C) of 2014 whereby the learned Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has taken cognizance against the

petitioners and has summoned to face trial for the offences

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19153 of 2015 dt.16-07-2019
2/3

the SectionDowry Prohibition Act.

3. The challenge is on the ground that conflicting

statement is there in the complaint petition and the statement of

the complainant on oath which goes to show false implication of

the petitioners.

4. According to complaint petition, the petitioners

demanded money for construction of a house at Birpur. When

the complainant expressed inability of her parents, the accused

persons abused her. About a month passed almost in the same

situation. Thereafter, the informant left for Delhi along with her

husband and she was peaceful and happy at Delhi. After

sometimes the husband started demanding money for

purchasing a Flat at Delhi. In paragraph-5 of the petition it is

stated that when the complainant was pregnant her husband

pressurized for miscarriage and committed assault to her;

whereas in the statement on oath the complainant stated that the

petitioner No.1 father-in-law had pressurized for abortion and

father-in-law had in fact assaulted her.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the

prayer on the ground that there is sufficient material against the

petitioners also. Hence, the order requires no interference.

6. Considering the fact that allegation of demand of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19153 of 2015 dt.16-07-2019
3/3

four lacs for construction of house at Birpur was condoned by

the complainant when she left for Delhi along with her husband

and was happy at Delhi without making any complaint against

the parents. Thereafter, the entire allegation is against the

husband and not against the petitioners save and except the

addition made in the solemn affirmation as disclosed above.

Apparently, the prosecution of the petitioners suffers from

oblique motive and amounts to abuse of the process of the

Court.

7. Hence, the impugned order is thereby quashed

only against the petitioners and the application stands allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J)
Mkr./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.07.2019
Transmission Date 21.07.2019