SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pramila Devi @ Pravila Devi @ … vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 5 December, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34164 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2013 Thana- MADHUBANI TOWN District-
Madhubani

PRAMILA DEVI @ PRAVILA DEVI @ PARMILA DEVI wife of Late Raj
Nandan Sharma resident of Village – Haweli, P.S. – Biharsharif, District –
Nalanda.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. State Of Bihar

2. Radha Devi wife of Bipin Kumar wife of Haweli P.S. – Biharsharif, District –

Nalanda at present Daughter of Ganesh Jha resident of Mohalla – Ganga
Sagar Chauk Ward No. 18, P.S. – Madhubani, District – Madhubani.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Sinha, Adv
For Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-12-2019
Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged in this application

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the refusal of order of discharge dated

30.05.2016 passed in G.R.Case No.1215 of 2013 corresponding to

Madhubani Town P.S.Case No.159 of 2013 for offence under

Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act.

3. The impugned order reveals that the learned Trial

Judge has relied on the statement of witnesses before the police in

paragraph-6,7,9,8,16 and 17 of the case diary. I have also perused

the statement of the witnesses, who have specifically named this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34164 of 2016 dt.05-12-2019
2/2

petitioner also, who had demanded dowry from the informant as

well as her parents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

complaint case was filed in the court at Madhubani vide Complaint

Case No.616 of 2016 containing identical allegation against the

petitioner and others.

5. A copy of the complaint petition at Annexure-5 to

the supplementary affidavit. The perusal of the complaint petition

reveals that the different date of occurrence and accrual of cause of

action is mentioned therein the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

is a continuing offence. Therefore, on that reason only, the

impugned order cannot be interfered with. The trial of both cases

may go before the same court in pursuance of order passed by a

competent court.

6. Since there is sufficient material to proceed against

the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as devoid of any merit.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

Nitesh/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.12.2019
Transmission Date 06.12.2019

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