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