SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Md. Shahid Khan vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 14 July, 2017


Criminal Miscellaneous No.40255 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2398 Year- 2006 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-

Md. Shahid Khan, Son of Sultan Khan, R/O Mohalla-Darji Tola, Muradpur Lane,
Subjibagh, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna
…. …. Petitioner/s

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Amma Khatoon, W/O Mahmood Alam, R/O Mohalla-Azad Nagar
(Madhopara), P.S.-Khajanchi, P.S.-Khajanchi Sahayak, District-Purnea
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.A.Alam, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :

Date: 14-07-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner filed this quashing petition against order

dated 07.12.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr.

Rev. No. 90 of 2011 whereby he declined to interfere with the

cognizance order dated 22.01.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.

2398 of 2006.

3. Petitioner is the son-in-law of the complainant and the

allegation in the complaint, in brief, is that the husband of the

complainant’s daughter, the present petitioner, used to torture her for

more dowry, so she had filed a complaint case i.e., Complaint Case

No. 561 of 2001 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and

also filed a case for maintenance in the Family Court and the matter is

pending there.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40255 of 2013 dt.14-07-2017


4. Allegation levelled with regard to present occurrence is

that on 04.12.2006 at 8:15 P.M., the petitioner came to the house of

complainant and started knocking the door thereafter breaking the

door entered inside the house along with others and asked why she

has kept his wife there and pushed her so she fell down on the ground

thereafter he caught hold his wife. On alarm by the complainant and

her daughter, he fled away taking Rs. 1,600/- from her hand bag and a

chain of silver with him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

complainant is the mother-in-law of the petitioner and was

instrumental in getting the relationship strained in between husband

and wife. However, another complaint case earlier lodged by the

complainant against the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code has been quashed by this Court. He further submits that

allegation of forcible entry in the house of the complainant as well as

committing theft of money is false and fabricated. He submits that the

petitioner has filed a police case against the complainant on

08.05.2016 so present complaint case was lodged by her only to put

pressure upon the petitioner to withdraw the case lodged by him.

Moreover, in the formant of complaint, the date of occurrence is

mentioned as 12.12.2004 whereas in the narrative portion of the

complaint, the date of occurrence is stated 04.12.2006 and it is not

corrected till now, which also shows frivolity of the case filed by the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40255 of 2013 dt.14-07-2017


complainant. Learned counsel further submits that wife of the

petitioner later on married with another man leading her conjugal life.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal

of the record, it is apparent that earlier matrimonial relationship of the

petitioner was strained with his wife (daughter of the complainant)

and a series of litigations were going on in between them. The

petitioner earlier had lodged an FIR against his mother-in-law on

08.05.2006, alleging forcibly taking away her daughter (petitioner’s

wife) to her home and thereafter this present complaint has been filed.

So the present complaint filed by the complainant appears malicious

in nature in order to take personal vengeance as earlier petitioner had

filed a police case against her only a few month back, hence,

continuation of further criminal proceeding in the matter in the court

below would be abuse of process of court. Therefore, entire criminal

proceeding in Complaint Case No. 2398 of 2006 including order dated

07.12.2011 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 90 of 2011 is set aside. The

petition stands allowed.

(Arun Kumar, J)

Uploading Date 20.07.2017
Transmission 20.07.2017

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