IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.7231 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1824 Year- 2010 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District- Purnea
1. Guddi Devi @ Lali Devi W/O Rajaram Sah, D/O Shankar Kapar Resident Of
Village- Khaira Chanda, Police Station- Narpatganj, District- Araria
2. Shankar Kapar S/O Late Soti Lal Kapar Resident Of Village- Khaira Chanda,
Police Station- Narpatganj, District- Araria
3. Mahesh Kapar S/O Shankar Kapar Resident Of Village- Khaira Chanda, Police
Station- Narpatganj, District- Araria
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Rajaram Sah @ Rajesh Kumar S/O Sant Lal Sah Resident Of Village- Mahalbari
Tola Male Bitta, Police Staiton- Dagarua, District- Purnea
…. …. Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana
For the Opposite Party/s : None
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 20-04-2017
Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. No one has
appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2 in spite of notices.
The petitioners are the wife, father-in-law and brother-
in-law of the complainant (O.P. No. 2). They have assailed the order
dated 30.08.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Purnea in Complaint Case No. 1824 of 2010 wherein after enquiry
into the complaint lodged by the O.P. No. 2, cognizance under
Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he was
married with petitioner no. 1 whereafter she came to the sasural and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7231 of 2013 dt.20-04-2017
2/3
lived with him. His wife later came to know about his ailment and
started quarreling with him. At times, she used to leave the home and
go to Naihar. In June, 2009, his wife left the matrimonial home and
started living in Naihar. The complainant went there and tried to take
her back which she refused. Again, he went to Sasural to take his wife
back and brought her to the Sasural on 25.5.2010. On 30.5.2010, the
accuseds came to his house and stayed overnight. In the morning
when he was away from house, she left the house along with cash of
Rs. 5,000/-, 20 bhar silver and 04 bhar gold besides her belongings.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the articles which
are said to have taken away by the petitioner no. 1 was/were stridhan.
The present prosecution was lodged by the complainant/husband in
retaliation to the complaint lodged by the wife (petitioner no. 1)
against her husband under Section 498A IPC on 31.5.2010. If such
prosecution is allowed to continue, the same shall result in complete
miscarriage of justice.
On going through the complaint, it is found that the
allegation is of taking away the belongings of the wife. The jewellary
which is said to have been taken away by the wife and her father and
brother is generally considered the stridhan of the lady/wife. That
apart, it appears the process of the Court was apparently misused by
the husband (complainant) to put undue pressure on his wife and her
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7231 of 2013 dt.20-04-2017
3/3
other close family members.
In the setting of these facts clearly evidencing from the
record, the continuance of the present proceeding, in the opinion of
the Court, would result in miscarriage of justice.
Consequently, the application is allowed. The order
dated 30.08.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Purnea in Complaint Case No. 1824 of 2010 is set aside.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)
Pankaj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 24.04.2017
Transmission 24.04.2017
Date
