SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Md. Abdul Salam @ Md. Salam vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 11 October, 2017


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.-
Bazpatti, District-Sitamarhi.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, APP

Date: 11-10-2017

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
Transmission 14.10.2017

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