IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1179 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR)

1. Naresh Kumar son of Bhuneshwar Singh

2. Anil Kumar son of Bhuneshwar Singh

3. Lalo Devi @ Lalita Devi wife of Anil Kumar

4. Suresh Singh son of Bhuneshwar Singh

5. Arnika Bharti @ Amika Kumari wife of Suresh Singh all are resident of village-
Dih Gaupur, Jogi Asthan, P.O.,- Gaupur, P.S.- Ujiyarpur, District- Samastipur

6. Gaytri Devi, wife of Muneshwar Singh wrongly described as Bhuneshwar
Singh

7. Muneshwar Singh, wrongly described as Bhuneshwar Singh son of Late
Balgovind Singh,
petitioner nos. 6 7 are resident of village- Dih Gaupur, Jogi Asthan, P.O.-
Gaupur, P.S.- Ujiyarpur, District- Samastipur

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Patna , Bihar

2. Pratima Raj @ Dauli, wife of Naresh K umar, resident of village- Dih Gaupur,
Jogi Asthan, P.O.- Gaupur, P.S.- Ujiyarpur, District- Samastipur, at present
resident of daughter of Anirudh Singh, Village+ P.O. + P.S.- Jandaha, District-
Vaishali

…. …. Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 08-12-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners are husband and in-laws of respondent

No.2 Pratima Raj @ Dauli. Pratima Raj @ Dauli initially filed

Complaint Case No.1042 of 2015, under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code, against the petitioners in the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali. Thereafter, she filed
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1179 of 2015 dt.08-12-2017

P3/

Samastipur Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2015 against the petitioners.

In both the cases, the date of occurrence is mentioned as 18.06.2014

and onwards. In both the cases the specific date of occurrence of

assault is mentioned as 03.01.2015.

3. The present application has been preferred for quashing

the cognizance order dated 14.07.2015, vide Annexure-4, passed in

the above complaint case and for quashing the cognizance order dated

07.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate-I, Samastipur, in the police case. Alternative prayer is for

amalgamation of the complaint case with the police case.

4. So far merit in the submission for quashing is

concerned, on the basis of material on the record, this Court is not

inclined to quash the cognizance orders. However, it cannot be

disputed that these cases should be tried by one Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that

considering the convenience of respondent No.2, the cases be tried at

Vaishali at Hajipur.

6. In the circumstances, it is ordered that the trial of

Samastipur Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2015 be transferred to the

District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, who shall assign the

record to the Magistrate before whom the aforesaid complaint case is

pending and shall ensure that both the cases be tried by one and the
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1179 of 2015 dt.08-12-2017

P3/

same presiding officer and both the cases shall be tried as a police

case in view of the provisions of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C.

7. With the aforesaid observation, this application stands

disposed of.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

Mkr./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.12.2017
Transmission 12.12.2017
Date