SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manorma Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 21 August, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51075 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2010 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya

Manorma Devi Wife of Shatrughan Bhagat @ Shatrughan Kumar, Resident of
Mohalla Barki Delha, P.S.- Delha, District- Gaya. … … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Shankar Prasad son of Nand Lal Bhagat

3. Kalindi Devi Wife of Shankar Prasad

4. Sumitra Devi Wife of Nand Lal Bhagat All Resident of Mohalla Barki
Delha, P.S.- Delha, District- Gaya.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rashid Izhar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar Singh, Sr.Adv.

: Mr. Praveen Prakash, Adv
For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-08-2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is informant of Delha P.S.Case No.44

of 2010 registered under Sections 498A and Section379/Section34 I.P.C. against

opposite party Nos. 2 to 4.

3. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet

for offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. Accordingly, the

learned Magistrate took cognizance on 04.03.2011 for offences

under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C.

4. During trial, the petitioner filed a petition before

the learned court below that charge under Section 498A I.P.C. is

also made out on the basis of prosecution evidence. Hence, charge

under Section 498A I.P.C. be also added.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51075 of 2015 dt.21-08-2019
2/5

5. The prayer was made only after examination of the

petitioner and her husband Shatrughan Bhagat, who is not an

accused in this case. The learned Trial Magistrate allowed the

prayer for addition of charge under Section 498A I.P.C. and the

accused person were directed to remain present for framing of

charges. The said order was passed on 09.05.2014. The accused

person challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Sessions

Judge in Cr. Revision No.02 of 2014. The matter was heard by

learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gaya and by the impugned

order dated 16.07.2015, the order of the Trial Court dated

09.05.2014 was set aside and criminal revision was allowed. The

order of revisional court is under challenge in this application

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. The petitioner was examined in the case as P.W.2.

She specifically deposed that the inlaws used to abuse and assault

her as well as to her husband, as the husband was not fulfilling

their demand of money. In the cross examination, she admitted that

the father of the husband is a driver and mother sells vegetables

whereas her husband was employed in B.S.N.L. Only her husband

was employed on a Govt. post. She further stated that the mother-

in-law had sold the family property but did not give money to the

extent of the share of her husband in the said property. P.W.2 has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51075 of 2015 dt.21-08-2019
3/5

nowhere stated that there was illegal demand from P.W.2 or her

parents. P.W.1 Shatrugan Bhagat, the husband of the petitioner, has

also stated that both the spouses were being tortured by the family

members, as the family members were demanding money, which

they were not in a position to provide.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

revisional court cannot substitute its own views on the view

expressed by the learned Trial Court. It has very limited

jurisdiction to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the

order passed by the learned court below. Hence, the impugned

order is not sustainable in law.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

opposite party No.2 submitted that the trial court has committed

error of record as there was no material in the prosecution

evidence disclosing ingredients of the offence under Section 498

I.P.C. If the finding of the learned Trial Judge was suffering from

error of record, the revisional court was competent to set the same

right which has been done by the revisional court herein.

Therefore, the same requires no interference.

9. Section 498A I.P.C. reads as follows:

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty.–Whoever,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51075 of 2015 dt.21-08-2019
4/5

being the husband or the relative of the

husband of a woman, subjects such woman to

cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment

for a term which may extend to three years

and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.–For the purpose of this section,

“cruelty” means–

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a

nature as is likely to drive the woman to

commit suicide or to cause grave injury or

danger to life, limb or health (whether mental

or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or

any person related to her to meet any

unlawful demand for any property or valuable

security or is on account of failure by her or

any person related to her to meet such

demand.”

10. There is no evidence on the record that cruelty

was committed against the petitioner by the accused person as

defined in Section 498A I.P.C. inasmuch as there is no evidence of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51075 of 2015 dt.21-08-2019
5/5

any willful conduct of the accused person of such a nature as was

likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave

injury or danger to her life, limb or health .

11. There is no material to substantiate that the

alleged harassment of the petitioner was with a view to coercing

her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for

any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her

or any person related to her to meet such demand. In category-(b),

a husband cannot be a person related to the victim from whom

demand of money was made by other inlaws. The “term any

person related to her” would include only the maternal relation of

the victim.

12. Therefore, there was no material on the record for

addition of charge under Section 498A I.P.C. Hence, there is no

need to interfere with the order of the revisional court in exercise

of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this application is

dismissed as devoid of any merit.

(Birendra Kumar, J)
Nitesh/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.08.2019
Transmission Date 23.08.2019

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