SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kumar Abhishek vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 4 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45161 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-203 Year-2012 Thana- LAHERIASARAI District- Darbhanga

Kumar Abhishek, Son of Jitendra Kumar Choudhary, Resident of
Wheelarganj, P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Shiku Kashyap @ Sikku Kashyam D/o Dr. Mohan Chaudhary, Resident of
Mohalla- Bhattiari Sarai (Mishra Tola), District- Darbhanga, At Present Shiku
Kashyap C/o Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla- Wheelarganj,
P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Murari Nr. Chaudhary and
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Das, Advocates
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar and
Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-02-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.P.P.

for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the following relief:

“That this is an application for
quashing the Criminal Revision Order dated
6.9.14 passed in Criminal Revision No.
306/2013 by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge-4, Darbhanga as well as petitioner
challenged the cognizance order dated
17.04.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Darbhanga in Laheriasarai P.S.
Case No. 203/12, where under learned C.J.M.
took cognizance of offence u/s 323, 341, 498A,
307, 504, 506, 419, 420/34 I.P.C.”

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45161 of 2014 dt.04-02-2019
2/3

3. The petitioner, who is the husband of the Opposite

Party No. 2, is accused, along with four other family members of

torture, assault and demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is

the Opposite Party No. 2, who is at fault and does not want to live

with him. It was further submitted that the petitioner had obtained

decree of divorce in Matrimonial Case No. 68 of 2011 dated

26.08.2011, against the Opposite Party No. 2. However, it was

submitted that the same was set aside in Miscellaneous Case No. 3

of 2012 by order dated 18.06.2013 and challenge to the same by

the petitioner in M. A. No. 477 of 2013, was also dismissed,

though after filing of the present case, on 07.07.2015. Learned

counsel submitted that the petitioner along with other family

members have been made accused despite the Opposite Party No.

2 being at fault.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the Opposite Party No. 2,

submitted that the petitioner being the husband is responsible for

the general well being and upkeep of the wife. It was submitted

that there is also a male child out of the wedlock and, thus, it is

obvious that it was not the Opposite Party No. 2, who is

responsible for not living in the matrimonial home and it also

points to the fact that there was torture and demand of dowry,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45161 of 2014 dt.04-02-2019
3/3

forcing the Opposite Party No. 2 to move out of the house and

presently she was living with her sister in Delhi along with her

minor son. Learned counsel submitted that the conduct of the

petitioner would show that he is trying to play with the process of

the Court, inasmuch as, while she was living with him at

Darbhanga, showing her address to be somewhere at Patna, notices

were sent and an ex-parte decree of divorce was obtained which

Opposite Party No. 2 has got reversed and which has also been

upheld by the High Court.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the Parties, the Court

does not find any merit in the present application.

7. From the materials on record, it is clear that sufficient

material existed before the Court below to have taken cognizance

and at this stage, it cannot be said that the case filed by the

Opposite Party No. 2, is false or frivolous needing any

interference.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR
U
T

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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