Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33300 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33300 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -328 Year- 2010 Thana -BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District-
BHAGALPUR
1. Indra Bhusan Singh @ Sudhir Kr. Singh, son of Anti Singh.
2. Neelam Singh, wife of Indra Bhusan Singh.
3. Pranav Singh, son of Sudhir Kr. Singh, All resident of Mohalla – Tilak Manjhi
near Shela Bhawan , Police Station -Tilak Manjhi, District – Bhagalpur.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Rachna Asis, Daughter of Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh , resident of Khirnighat
(Raja Bari ) Bari Khanjarpur in the house of Sri Rama Nand Prasad Singh , Police
Station – Barari , District – Bhagalpur.
…. …. Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate.
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Pradeep Narayan Kumar APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-08-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the State.
2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 11.04.2014
passed in G.R. Case No. 1349 of 2010, whereby the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, allowed the application of
the informant-opposite party no. 2 for adducing the evidence.
3. The facts leading to this application is that
informant-opposite party no. 2 lodged the Kotwali (Brari) P.S. Case
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33300 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017
No. 328 of 2010, on 20.05.2010, for the offence under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against her husband Pranav Kumar Singh, father-in-law Sudhir Singh,
mother-in-law Neelam Singh and brother-in-law Vani Singh. On
investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against only accused-
petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after framing the
charge the trial started against the accused-petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in
course of trial, informant-opposite party no. 2 filed an application to
close the evidence due to compromise entered in between the
informant-opposite party no. 2 and accused-petitioners and
accordingly the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bhagalpur, closed the evidence of the prosecution and recorded the
statement of the accused-petitioners, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
But thereafter informant-opposite party no. 2 filed an application to
permit her to adduce the evidence as terms of the compromise has
been disobeyed by the accused-petitioners with submission that since
the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not
compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., as such, closing of the
evidence on the basis of compromise petition filed earlier is not
maintainable. After hearing the informant-opposite party no. 2 and the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33300 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017
accused-petitioners, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bhagalpur, allowed the application of the informant-opposite party
no. 2 filed on 16.12.2013 illegally and fixed the date on 13.06.2014
for evidence.
5. On going through the impugned order, I find no
illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of
the court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise his
defence as raised herein in trial court at the appropriate stage.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
Bhardwaj/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 17.08.2017
Transmission 17.08.2017
Date
