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, APPCORAM: 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
