IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41514 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1307 Year- 2012 Thana -SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE District-
Md. Abdul Salam @ Md. Salam, Son of Late Md. Salahuddin Resident of Village-
Hehsaul Got, Ward No.-11, P.S.-Sitamarhi, District-Sitamarhi.
…. …. Petitioner/s
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nikhahat Praween, D/o Md. Mostaq, Resident of Village-Mirzapur, P.S.-
…. …. Opposite Party/s
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State. No one appears for the opposite party no.2.
Petitioner is the father-in-law of the complainant who
is seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2012
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi in
T.R.No.2490 of 2014, arising out of Complaint Case No.C-1/1307/12,
by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the
petitioner along with other accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
opposite party no.2 was married with Md. Maksood Alam on
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41514 of 2014 dt.11-10-2017 2
15.03.2007 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Customs. According
to learned counsel, a perusal of Annexure-1 i.e. the complaint petition
itself would show that there is no specific allegation against this
petitioner. The entire family members have been implicated in the
present case. The husband of the complaint is working at New Delhi
which is admitted in the complaint petition. Earlier also the opposite
party no.2 had lodged a case being Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.500 of
2009 which was amicably resolved and the husband of the
complainant agreed to pay her maintenance and keep her with him.
The complainant has in fact stated in the complaint petition that when
she reached New Delhi the husband of the complainant and his
brother-in-law Md.Salauddin wanted to sell her. Thereafter, again a
panchayati took place where it was decided that she will live in her
Naihar and her husband Md. Maksood Alam shall bear the
maintenance. Her husband paid her maintenance at the rate of
Rs.2,000/- per month for three months, but thereafter he stopped
paying maintenance, as a result thereof when complainant reached her
sasural in village Mehsaul on 15.7.2012 she found that her husband
had solemnized another marriage with accused no.8 in connivance
with other accused persons. It is alleged that when she protested
against this all the accused persons threatened her, asked her to get out
from the house and on protest they indulged in giving fists blow.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41514 of 2014 dt.11-10-2017 3
Learned counsel submits that this petitioner is the
father-in-law, an old age person, who has no concern with his son and
from perusal of the entire complaint petition it will appear that there is
no specific allegation either of demand of dowry or of committing any
overt act against the petitioner. The entire complaint moves around
the conduct of her husband.
No one has appeared to oppose the present application
on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
This Court has perused the complaint petition and
comes to a conclusion that there is no specific allegation against this
petitioner and only reason for implication of this petitioner is that he
is the father-in-law of the opposite party no.2. This Court is of the
considered opinion that further continuation of the prosecution against
the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
In the result, the application is allowed in respect of
the present petitioner and the order taking cognizance in so far as it
relates to him is hereby quashed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Uploading Date 14.10.2017