IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17893 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2014 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
1. Jabir Hussain Son of Md. Kamal @ Md Kalam
2. Md. Kamal @ Md Kalam Son of Sudhu Mian
3. Noor Jahan Khatoon W/o of Md. Kamal @ Md Kalam
4. Md Saddam Son of Md. Kamal @ Md Kalam
5. Md. Sabir Son of Md. Kamal @ Md Kalam
6. Shabana Khatoon Daughter of Md. Kamal @ Md Kalam
7. Shyameen Khatoon Daughter of Md. Kamal @ Md Kalam
8. Nasarin Khatoon Daughter of Md. Kamal @ Md Kalam
9. Rehan Khatoon Daughter of Md. Kamal @ Md Kalam All
Resident of Village- Sarbadha, P.S. Khizar Sarai, District- Gaya.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Shahnaj Pravin Wife of Jabir Hussain Resident of Village- Sarbadha, P.S.
Khizar Sarai, District- Gaya. At Present Resident of Mohalla Kashmirganj,
P.S. Masaurhi District- Patna.
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheikh Arkan Ahmad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. SURENDRA KUMAR(APP)
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-03-2018
Seeking quashing of Complaint Case No.37(C) of
2014, proceedings against applications by the Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Masaurhi and the order dated 2.7.2014 taking cognizance
for offences under Sections- 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, this application has been filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. That apart, against applicant No.1 Jabir Hussain, Son of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17893 of 2015 dt.28-03-2018
2/3
Md. Kamal @ Md. Kalam, cognizance has also been taken for the
offence under Section 323 of I.P.C.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and
on perusal of the complaint available on record and the statement
of the complainant recorded by the Court on 17.2.2014, it is clear
that she has made specific allegations only with regard to demand
of a Motorcycle, dowry and assaulting her, primarily on applicant
No.1, namely her husband, applicant Nos.2 and 3, namely her
father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. As far as applicant
Nos.4 to 9, namely, Md. Saddam, Md. Sabir, Shabana Khatoon,
Shayameen Khatoon, Nasarin Khatoon and Rehana Khatoon are
concerned, there is no whisper in the body of the complaint
anywhere nor in the statement recorded on 17.2.2014 with regard
to any act of omission or commission on the part of these 6
appellants, i.e. 4 to 9 which amounts to an offence under Sections
498A or 323 of I.P.C. Except for making vague allegation that all
the family members ill treated her, no specific allegations are made
with regard to applicant Nos.4 to 9.
That being so, keeping in view the law as laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Singh v. State
of M.P., (2013) 7 SCC 278, as far as the applicant Nos.4 to 9 are
concerned, there being no specific allegations against them, their
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17893 of 2015 dt.28-03-2018
3/3
applications are liable to be allowed. As far as applicant Nos.1 to 3
are concerned, there being specific allegations against them in the
body of the complaint and in the statement of the complainant
recorded on 17.2.2014, it is not appropriate to interfere into the
matter exercising my inherent extraordinary jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Applicant Nos.1 to 3 would have liberty to
raise all objections before the trial court and seek their discharge.
Accordingly, the application is allowed in part. As far
as the prayer made by applicant Nos.4 to 9 is concerned, the same
is allowed. The case instituted against them stands quashed. They
are discharged.
With liberty granted to applicant Nos.1 to 3 to raise
all objections before the trial court and seek their discharge, the
application is disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 03.04.2018
Transmission Date