SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Lalita Devi & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 October, 2017


Criminal Miscellaneous No.36192 of 2014
Arising Out of Complaint Case No. -1080 (C)Year- 2010 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE
District- PATNA

1. Lalita Devi wife of Kamla Rai

2. Kamla Rai, son of Late Janam Rai, resident of village-Bara, P.O.-Lakhni, P.S.-
Bihiya, District-Bhojpur (Ara) at presently residing at mohalla-Sainik
Colony, Gola Road, Danapur near Bank Colony, P.S.-Danapur, District-

Patna. …. …. Petitioner/s
1. The State of Bihar.

2. Nisha Kumari, wife of Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Kumar Rai, daughter of
Birendra Kumar Singh, resident of mohalla-Takiyapar (Lakri tall), P.O.-
Danapur Kant, P.S.-Danapur, District-Patna . … …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. H. Ahmad Khan, APP

Date: 09-10-2017

1. This criminal miscellaneous application under section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the

order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Danapur (Patna) in Complaint Case No. 1080(C)/2010

whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate finding prima facie

case, took cognizance against these petitioners and other co-accused

for the offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State.

3. These petitioners are in-laws of opposite party no. 2.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36192 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017


The marriage of opposite party no. 2 took place on 14.05.2002 with

the son of these petitioners. It has been alleged that immediately after

marriage, her husband and in-laws started torturing. In the statement

of complainant on solemn affirmation, I find that the Father and Uncle

of opposite party no. 2 went at the place of these petitioners in order

to settle the dispute but in vain. The petitioner no. 2 has retired from

Military Service and is residing at mohalla Danapur fromwhere the

opposite party no. 2 was ousted by these petitioners. The learned

Magistrate after going through the material on record, found sufficient

materials against these petitioners for their prosecution under section

498A of the Indian Penal Code. The husband of complainant (O.P.

No. 2) has not appeared before the Court below, although, as

submitted, he is in service. It has been submitted that these petitioners

have suppressed about his whereabouts and in order to save their son

from the criminal prosecution.

4. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in

this criminal miscellaneous application. This application is

accordingly, dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar, J)

Uploading Date 12.10.2017
Transmission 12.10.2017

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2024 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