IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36192 of 2014
Arising Out of Complaint Case No. -1080 (C)Year- 2010 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE
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
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
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
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
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 12.10.2017