SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jagdish Raut @ Jagdish Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 28 March, 2018

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15742 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1141 Year-2013 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur

1. Jagdish Raut @ Jagdish Rai Son of Late Khobhari Raut

2. Sushila Devi wife of Jagdish Raut

3. Shailendra Kumar @ Navi Kumar son of Jagdish Raut All are
permanent residents of village + P.O. Dhankaul, Ps – Piprathi,
District – Shivhar, presently residing at P.G. 5 B.R.A. B.U.
Campus , Ps. University, District – Muzaffarpur.

… … Petitioner/s

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Shima Kumari Wife of Shailendra Kumar @ Navi Kumar presently residing
at H/o Hari Nand Rai r/o village Chadhua, ps Kudhani, District – Muzaffarpur.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Manoj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad (APP)

Date : 28-03-2018

Shri Manoj Kumar Manoj, learned Counsel, appears

for the applicant and Shri Nagendra Prasad, learned A.P.P. appears

for the State. None appears for the complainant, respondent No.2,

in spite of service of notice.

Seeking quashing of a cognizance order dated

21.9.2013, passed by the S.D.J.M. (East) Muzaffarpur and the

entire complaint of Complaint Case No.1141 of 2013, Trial

No.2002 of 2014 registering complaint for the offence under

Sections 498A and 504/34 of I.P.C., read with Section 4 of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15742 of 2015 dt.28-03-2018

Dowry Prohibition Act, this application has been filed under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and on

perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent wife, it is seen that

the only allegation is with regard to demand of dowry and a

Motorcycle by applicant No.1 Jagdish Raut @ Jagdish Rai, the

father-in-law, and applicant No.3 Shailendra Kumar @ Navi

Kumar, the husband. In the entire body of the complaint, there is

not a single whisper or allegation made with regard to any demand

made by applicant No.2 Smt. Sushila devi, the mother-in-law. The

complaint is primarily against applicant No.1, the father-in-law,

and applicant No.3, the husband. In the complaint, in the absence

of there being specific allegations constituting an offence under

Section 498A or 504 of I.P.C. against applicant No.2 Smt. Sushila

Devi, cognizance taken against her in the matter is not sustainable.

Being satisfied that in the entire complaint there is no

allegation made against applicant No.2, this petition is allowed in

part. The petition of applicant No.2 Smt. Sushila Devi is allowed.

The order dated 21.9.2013 and criminal complaint case and trial

initiated against her is quashed.

As far as applicant Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, there

being allegations against them in the body of the complaint, it is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15742 of 2015 dt.28-03-2018

not a fit case to interfere into the matter at their instance exercising

extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

They are at liberty to raise all objections, as are

permissible under law, before the trial court and seek discharge.

With the aforesaid liberty to applicant Nos.1 and 3,

the application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ)


Uploading Date 04.04.2018
Transmission Date

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation