SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh And … vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 14 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.39518 of 2013
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2007 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran

1. Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh S/O late Keshav Prasad Singh Resident
Of Village Karma Tola Behind Pashu Chikitsalaya Near Nawada Chowk, P.S.
Nawada, District Ara.

2. Arvind Singh @ Arvind Kr. Singh S/O Late Keshav Prasad Singh Resident Of
Village Karma Tola Behind Pashu Chikitsalaya Near Nawada Chowk, P.S.
Nawada, District Ara.

3. Dipu @ Navnee Kumar S/O Late Keshav Prasad Singh Resident Of Village
Karma Tola Behind Pashu Chikitsalaya Near Nawada Chowk, P.S. Nawada,
District Ara.

4. Madhu W/O Sri Arvind Singh Resident Of Village Karma Tola Behind Pashu
Chikitsalaya Near Nawada Chowk, P.S. Nawada, District Ara.

5. Neha D/O Sri Arbind Singh Resident Of Village Karma Tola Behind Pashu
Chikitsalaya Near Nawada Chowk, P.S. Nawada, District Ara.

6. Shanti Devi @ Sahuti Devi W/O Bindeshwar Singh Resident Of Village
Karma Tola Behind Pashu Chikitsalaya Near Nawada Chowk, P.S. Nawada,
District Ara.

7. Ramesh Kumar S/O Bishundeo Prasad Resident Of Mahatma Gandhi Nagar,
P.S. Agamkuan, District Patna.

8. Sangita @ Munni W/O Ramesh Prasad Resident Of Mahatma Gandhi Nagar,
P.S. Agamkuan, District Patna.

9. Baby W/O Shiv Narayan Singh Resident Of Ganga Vihar Colony, P.S. Beur,
District Patna.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Sangeeta Singh D/O Late Dr. R.N. Singh C/O B.B. Rao, Bhawanipur Jirat,
P.S. Chhatauni, District East Champaran.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur with
Mr. Nilesh Kumar and Mr Ravi Kumar, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the O.P. : None

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 14-02-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

A.P.P. for the State.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39518 of 2013 dt.14-02-2019
2/5

2. Despite service of notice on Opposite Party No. 2,

none appeared on her behalf when the matter was taken up and

heard.

3. The petitioners have 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
order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the learned
Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, East
Champaran at Motihari in Tr. No. 1851/13
arising out of Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 27/07 by
which he rejected the petition filed by the
petitioners under sections 239 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for not framing charge
against them for the offence under section 323,
379, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”

4. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of Opposite Party

No. 2; petitioners no. 2 and 3 brothers of petitioner no. 1;

petitioner no. 4, the wife of petitioner no. 2; petitioner no. 5 the

daughter of petitioner no. 2; petitioner no. 6 aunt of the petitioner

no. 1; petitioners no. 8 and 9 sisters of the petitioner no. 1 and

petitioner no. 7 husband of petitioner no. 8.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is of torture and

demand of dowry. However, with regard to the husband, i.e.,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39518 of 2013 dt.14-02-2019
3/5

petitioner no. 1; his brother petitioner no. 2; his wife petitioner no.

4 and brother-in-law petitioner no. 7, it is specific of torture, taunt

and demand of dowry by way of a car and also of embezzlement of

Rupees Four Lakhs given to be invested in the name of Opposite

Party No. 2 in fixed deposit. Further, there is also general

allegation against the remaining petitioners. The Opposite Party

No. 2 has further alleged that the gold earrings and ring which

were given to her by mother and kept in her purse along with Rs.

4,000/- cash, were stolen in the matrimonial home.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

case has been filed after six years and admittedly the Opposite

Party No. 2 herself has deserted the matrimonial home and is

living with the mother. Learned counsel submitted that it appears

that the Opposite Party No. 2 wants divorce from the petitioner no.

1 and for this reason, this false case has been instituted. Learned

counsel further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and in

fact by implicating the sisters and another brother of the petitioner

no. 1 at the very fag end of the fardbeyan, clearly an attempt has

been made to misuse the process of the Court by falsely

implicating all the members of the family.

7. Learned A.P.P. submitted that there is specific

allegation against at least petitioner no. 1, his brother and his wife
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39518 of 2013 dt.14-02-2019
4/5

and brother-in-law. However, he was not in a position to counter

the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that against

the others there is hardly any substance in the allegations.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

finds that at least with regard to petitioners no. 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9, the

contention on their behalf that there is hardly any material to

justify the case against them, is correct and, thus, the Court finds

that they are entitled to relief. From the entire reading of the

fardbeyan, the allegation against them is only in passing terms and

only at the end their names have been taken and further, the entire

family of the husband of the Opposite Party No. 2 has been named

which the Court does not find justified.

9. Accordingly, the application on behalf of petitioners

no. 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 stands allowed. The entire criminal proceeding

arising out of Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 27 of 2007 (Tr. No. 1851 of

2013), including subsequent orders which may have been passed,

as far as petitioners no. 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are concerned, stand

quashed.

10. Coming to the remaining petitioners, the petitioner

no. 1 is the husband, the petitioner no. 2 his brother, petitioner no.

4 wife of the said brother and petitioner no. 7 the brother-in-law of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39518 of 2013 dt.14-02-2019
5/5

petitioner no. 1, against whom there are specific instances of

wrong doing, which, in the opinion of the Court, cannot be said to

be either cosmetic or exaggerated. Further, the Court finds the

fardbeyan written in the own hand of the Opposite Party No. 2 is

detailed, elaborate and the sequence narrated, appears to be quite

natural and believable. Thus, it cannot be said that the allegation

of maltreatment and the way the concerned petitioners having

acted with regard to cash given in her name and the demand for a

car and also the theft of gold earrings, ring and cash from her

purse, are frivolous, unbelievable or cosmetic, at least at this stage.

However, such view is only with regard to forming a prima facie

opinion for the purpose of considering the prayer made in the

present application.

11. Accordingly, the application on behalf of petitioners

no. 1, 2, 4 and 7 stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T

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