SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jitendra Kumar Sinha And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 14 August, 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-386 Year-2012 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada

1. Jitendra Kumar Sinha son of Yamuna Prasad Sinha

2. Yamuna Prasad Sinha @ Jamuna Prasad Son of Late Brahmdeo Prasad

3. Sumitra Devi W/o- Yamuna Prasad Sinha

4. Prabhu Kumar Sinha Son of Yamuna Prasad Sinha

5. Gafur Kumar Sinha @ Sanjeet Kumar Sinha, Son of Yamuna Prasad

All resident of village- Panchwara, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District-

… … Petitioner/s

1. State Of Bihar

2. Chanchala Devi W/o- Jitendra Kumar Sinha
D/o- Chhotelal Prasad, R/o- village- Goithadih, P.S.- Nawada (Kadirganj
O.P.), District- Nawada.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Surendra Kumar

Date : 14-08-2019

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners, by means of this application under

Sectionsection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has invoked

the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash

the order dated 31.05.2017, passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Nawada in Nawada P.S. Case No. 386 of

2012, whereby cognizance under Sectionsection 498A/Section34 of the

Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

The brief facts of the case in nutshell is that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.376 of 2018 dt.14-08-2019

complainant filed a complaint petition, inter alia, stating that

her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1, Jitendra

Kumar Sinha on 01.03.2001 as per the Hindu rites and

rituals at Nawada, thereafter she started living at her

matrimonial home along with other family members.

Further, it is stated that her husband used to live in Delhi for

his livelihood and he used to come home occasionally. She

further stated in her complaint that she gave birth of female

child and soon thereafter the family members of the

complainant started torturing her but somehow she was

living peacefully at the instance of Panchayati. After lapse of

one month of Panchayati, dowry of Rs. 50000/- was

demanded by the accused persons and upon refusal of the

same, she was subjected to assault and she was ousted from

her matrimonial home after committing theft of her all

belonging which was worth of Rs. 50000/-. Although the

matter was informed to the police but the case could not be

registered against the accused persons and being left with

no option, the complainant proceeded to file the present

complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nawada and the same has been registered as Nawada

(Town) P.S. Case No. 386 of 2012 at the instance of the Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.376 of 2018 dt.14-08-2019

The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that the matter has been compromised

between the parties, which is evident from Annexure-2, and

as such prays for quashing of the entire proceedings as well

as the order taking cognizance.

From perusal of the materials available on

record and the submissions made above, it is evident that

notices have been issued to the O.P. No.2 but she has chosen

not to appear in this case as yet, service report of notice is at

Flag-A, and the matter has been compromised between the

parties and they are living together happily.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian

Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 Supreme

Court Cases 303 has laid down the law that criminal

proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable

cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary

jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case

the justice so demands. According to the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the

parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it

is not related to a heinous offence, the proceedings may be


Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.376 of 2018 dt.14-08-2019

In view of the above, the present application is

allowed and the entire proceeding including the order taking

cognizance dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Nawada in Nawada P.S. Case No. 386 of

2012, is, hereby, quashed.

The application accordingly stands allowed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)


Uploading Date
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