SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajiv Kumar Sinha vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 16 December, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24987 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2002 Thana- PIRBAHOR District- Patna

Rajiv Kumar Sinha Son of Sri Binod Kumar Sinha, resident of Nagarnausa
Kothi, Makhania Kuan Road, P.S.- Pirbahore, Town and District- Patna.

… … Petitioner
Versus

1. State Of Bihar

2. Sangeeta Sinha, W/o Rajiv Kumar Sinha D/o Late Swarn Kumar, resident
of Flat No.- B- 303, Manju Vatika Apartment, Bailey Road, P.S.- Rupaspur,
Town and District- Patna.

… … Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.Pankaj, Adv
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-12-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

for the State.

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the order

dated 22.02.2010, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Patna, in G. R. Case no. 399 of 2002, corresponding

to Pirbahore P. S. Case No. 30 of 2002, by which, the learned

Magistrate has framed charges Under Sections 498A/Section34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the SectionDowry Prohibition Act

against the petitioner and others.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24987 of 2018 dt.16-12-2019
2/5

It is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the entire

prosecution story is false and fabricated having been instituted

six years after the marriage. The nature of the allegations seen in

the background of long delay after which the same has been

lodged renders the entire prosecution to be unreliable. It, by no

stretch of imagination, that there can be a demand for dowry

six years after the marriage. It is also submitted that case of

other co-accused person, who is father-in-law of the

informant/opposite party no.2, was considered by this Court in

Cr. Misc. No. 38154 of 2014 and the case of the father-in-law

of the informant/opposite party No.2 was allowed and the

charges framed against him were quashed as well as the entire

criminal proceedings arising out of the instant case. It is

submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, the instant case, in

so far as the petitioner, who is husband of the

informant/opposite party no.2 is concerned, should also be

quashed. He further submits that the order whereby charges

have been famed is clearly unsustainable in view of the

submissions which have been taken note of hereinabove.

On a plain reading of the order dated 05.03. 2018 passed

in Cr. Misc. No. 38154 of 2014, it is apparent that the Court has

taken note of the fact that the petitioner therein was the father-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24987 of 2018 dt.16-12-2019
3/5

in-law presently living separately from the husband of the

informant/opposite party no.2 for quite some time. The

allegation of neglect and torture was against the husband on

account of amorous relation having developed with a colleague,

who is teacher in the same school. Same was made the basis to

hold that the father-in-law ( petitioner of Cr. Misc. no. 38154

of 2014) was falsely implicated in the instant case and the

prosecution, in so far as the Binod Kumar Sinha was

concerned, was nothing but an abuse of the process of the law.

This Court had taken note of the fact that there was total

absence of any specific overt act against the said petitioner,

namely Binod Kumar Sinha while quashing the criminal

proceedings in respect of co-accused, namely, Binod Kumar

Sinha. This Court had relied upon the fact that petitoner of

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38154 of 2014 was similarly

related to the informant/opposite party no.2. Order dated

05.03.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 38154 of 2014 had been

considered by the Apex Court also in appeal at the instance of

informant/opposite party no.2 and Special Leave to Appeal was

dismissed.

The circumstances taken note of herein above, therefore,

made out a case for quashing of the criminal prosecution in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24987 of 2018 dt.16-12-2019
4/5

respect of co-accused, namely, Binod Kumar Sinha, who was

father-in-law of the informant/opposite party no.2 and the

prosecution, as against the earlier co-accused, who was elder

brother-in- law of the informant/opposite party no.2 was also

quashed.

Having regard to the parity in the relationship and the fact

that there was no specific overt act against the said petitioners

and the entire allegations were centering around the instant

petitioner, who is husband of the informant/opposite party no.2,

the criminal prosecution in respect of those accused persons

had been quashed and order framing charge had also been

quashed.

The orders do no support the claim of the petitioner in the

instant proceedings. In fact, the said orders as also the

allegations made in the First Information report are such that

the Court would observe that there is sufficient prima facie

material for arriving at a subjective opinion regarding there

being sufficient case for taking the petitioner to trial. The prima

facie satisfaction and framing of charge, therefore, in the

aforesaid circumstances, in respect of the petitioner, who is

husband of the informant/opposite party no.2, requires no

interference.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24987 of 2018 dt.16-12-2019
5/5

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of

the petitioner, this Court would find that no grounds have been

urged for quashing the order framing charges.

The application stands dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
shyambihari/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 19.12.2019
Transmission Date 19.12.2019

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