IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.15 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2017 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE
Pratibha Kumari W/O Ranjan Kumar, d/o Mahendra Prasad, Resident of
village Niyamatpur, Harnaut, P.S. Harnaut, District Nalanda.
… … Petitioner/s
1.The State Of Bihar.
2.Ranjan Kumar son of Dinesh Prasad.
3. Dinesh Prasad, son of late Tuklal Mahto.
4.Urmila Devi, wife of Dinesh Prasad.
5.Pawan Kumar, son of Dinesh Prasad.
6. Gita Devi wife of Pawan Kumar.
Opposite Party no. 2 to 6 are resident of Village-Veer, P.S. Dhanaura, District
Patna, at present Bajrangpuri, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna.
… … Respondent/s
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satya Ranjan Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt. Sharda Kumari
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
Date : 15-01-2019
This criminal revision application is directed against
the order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 2316
of 2017 passed by ACJM-V, Nalanda, by which the learned
court below has refused to take cognizance against Opposite
Party Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and has taken cognizance against Opposite
Party Nos. 2 and 3 only, under Section 498A of IPC and has not
the Indian penal code.
Petitioner has filed a complaint case against all
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.15 of 2018 dt.15-01-2019
opposite parties on 03.03.2017 arraying them as accused under
which complainant-petitioner inter alia stated that she was
married to Opposite Party no. 2 Ranjan Kumar, and at the time
of marriage cash, ornaments and clothes were given and she
went to her matrimonial home. After 15 days of marriage, the
opposite parties started abusing, assaulting and torturing
complainant-petitioner for giving Rs. 2 Lacs less in dowry and
was ousted from her matrimonial home and all gifts and
presents were kept by them.
Complainant-petitioner was examined by the court on
S.A and in support of her case three enquiry witnesses were
examined. However, learned court below took cognizance of the
offence against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 498A
of IPC and refused to take cognizance against remaining
opposite parties on the basis of materials available before the
trial court, as no prima facie case could be made out against
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the court below committed error by not taking cognizance
against opposite party nos. 4 to 6 and under different sections of
statement of enquiry witnesses there were sufficient materials
before the court below, making out a prima facie case against
opposite party nos. 4 to 6 and offences under different sections
After going through the complaint petition, statement
made by complainant on S.A. and enquiry witnesses, this Court
does not find any error or irregularity in the order dated
12.04.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 2316 of 2017 by
ACJM-V, Nalanda. The trial court is empowered to alter, modify
or add charge at any stage of trial. The criminal revision petition
is disposed of.
(S. Kumar, J)
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 22.01.2019
Transmission Date 22.01.2019