SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Prasad & … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 25 August, 2017


Criminal Miscellaneous No.38365 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3819 Year- 2012 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- ARRARIA

1. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Prasad Son of Chhattulal Prasad

2. Chhattulal Prasad, Son of late Ram Vilash Prasad alias Ram Kailash Prasad

3. Devkali Devi Wife of Chhattulal Prasad
All are residents of Mohalla Ward No. 13 Sultan Pokhar, P.S. Farbisganj,
District- Araria, at present village + P.O. – Gopur, P.S. – Garkha, District- Saran
at Chapra.

…. …. Petitioner/s

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sheela Devi, W/o Jitendra Kumar alias Jitendra Prasad, Resident of Mohalla
Ward No. 03, Sultan Pokhar Farbisganj, P.S. – Farbisganj, District- Araria.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

Date: 25-08-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and the State.

2. The petitioners seeks quashing of the cognizance order

dated 27.05.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Araria in

connection with Complaint Case No. C-3819 of 2012 where he has

taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal


3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

complainant O.P. No. 2 was married with the petitioner no. 1 in the

year 2001 and complaint was filed in the 2012 only after receiving
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38365 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017


notice in a divorce suit filed by the husband. He further submits that

complainant is still residing in the matrimonial home, she has also

filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act and the present

prosecution case is malicious in nature only with intention to grab the

house of the petitioners situated in Araria Town.

4. Contrary to the submission, learned counsel for the

O.P. No. 2 submits that there is specific allegation of committing

cruelty and harassment against the petitioners in connection with

demand of further dowry and she has filed also a case under the

Domestic Violence Act.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and on

perusal of record, this Court finds no error in the order taking

cognizance by the court below as it is not the case that the allegation

levelled in the complaint does not disclose the offence. So this

application stands dismissed.

(Arun Kumar, J)

Uploading Date 28.08.2017
Transmission 28.08.2017

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