SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nirmala Devi @ Meera And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 18 July, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19578 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2012 Thana- SISWAN District- Siwan

1. Nirmala Devi @ Meera W/o Sri Harandra Pandey

2. Pinki Devi W/o Late Jai Prakash Pandey

3. Harendra Pandey S/o Late Jadu Nath Pandey all are resident of village-

Padeji, P.O.- Jaijore, P.S.- Andar, District- Siwan

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. State Of Bihar

2. Ashok Kumar Upadhyay S/o Braj Mohan Upadhyay Resident of village-

Nirkhapur, P.S.- Siswan, District- Siwan

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.M.Dayal, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-07-2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners are relations of the husband of the

daughter of opposite party No.2. They have sought for quashment

of the order of cognizance dated 10.09.2013 passed in Siswan

P.S.Case No.108 of 2012 corresponding to G. R. No. 2688 of 2012

whereby cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections

498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the SectionDowry Prohibition Act. The husband of

the daughter of opposite party No.2 is also a co-accused and he

had approached this Court for quashing the same cognizance order

in Cr. Misc. No.1620 of 2016 which was dismissed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court on 29.09.2016.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19578 of 2015 dt.18-07-2019
2/3

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that in view of the growing tendency to implicate all

the family members whenever such dispute arises between the

spouses, it has been held by the different courts that criminal

proceeding against the inlaws be quashed. Further submission is

that the allegation is general and omnibus and not specific against

any of the petitioners.

4. Allegation against petitioner No.3-Harendra

Pandey is specific that he asked for a motorcycle and colour T.V.

as a condition precedent to take the bride to his house. The

informant promised to provide in the same in future. Thereafter,

the daughter of the informant went to her Sasural and other

accused person, who are petitioners herein, started torturing her for

non-fulfillment of the demand and were pressurizing her for early

fulfillment of the demand. In the police investigation, material has

come against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits

that trial is going on and the prosecution is leading its evidence

after charge and charges have already been framed against all the

petitioners. Hence, the cognizance order receded in consequence.

6. Considering the material on the record prima facie,

disclosing the ingredients of offences for which cognizance has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19578 of 2015 dt.18-07-2019
3/3

been taken, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

Hence, this application is dismissed.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

Nitesh/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.07.2019
Transmission Date 23.07.2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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