SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rakesh Kumar @ Roshan Kumar @ … vs The State Of Bihar on 2 January, 2019

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22116 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2009 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura

1. Rakesh Kumar @ Roshan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Son of Deochandra Ram

2. Deochandra Ram Son of Late Sukhdeo Ram

3. Bijendra Ram S/o – Panchu Ram

4. Bilash Ram Son of Late Sukhdeo Ram

5. Gita Devi W/o – Deochandra Ram

6. Jhalari Devi Wife of Late Dashrath Ram

7. Rekha Devi Daughter of Deochandra Ram All Resident of Village – Ajgewa,
Police Station – Sour Bazar, District – Saharsa.

… … Petitioner/s

1. The State of Bihar

2. Veena Devi wife of Rakesh Kumar @ Roshan Kumar Daughter of Sahdeo
Ram, Resident of Village-Ajgewa, Police Station- Sour Bazar, District-
Saharsa at present address Village and Post Office Rahta Funhan, Police
Station- Uda Kishunganj, District- Madhepura.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

Date : 02-01-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.P.P.

for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following


“That this quashing application is
directed against the impugned roder dated
07/09/2009 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura passed in
connection with Complaint Case No. 89 C/2009,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22116 of 2014 dt.02-01-2019

whereby and where under the Learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura took
cognizance of the offences under section 498(A),
323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and directed to issue
summons against the petitioners.”

3. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the opposite

party no. 2 (complainant) and others are family members/relatives

of the petitioner no. 1. During the pendency of the application, the

petitioner no. 2, who is father of the petitioner no. 1 has died.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is of demand of

dowry and torture and also assault.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

from the plain reading of the complaint, it would be obvious that

the allegations are cosmetic and further, with regard to the

complainant being poisoned at the house of the petitioner no. 1, it

is improbable as there is no attached prescription to show that

there was any poisoning. Learned counsel further referred to the

Informatory Petition filed by the petitioner no. 1 before the police

on 19.01.2018, alleging threatening by the relatives of the


6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for

the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the petitioners were also

responsible in the harassment and demand of dowry and with

regard to petitioner no. 1, despite Court order, when the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22116 of 2014 dt.02-01-2019

complainant was accompanying him to the matrimonial home, she

was left at night at Mansi railway station and petitioner no. 1 had

run away and she had to call her brother to go home of which, the

Court had taken judicial notice and also directed payment of Rs.

25,000/- by the petitioner no. 1 to the opposite party no. 2.

However, on a direct query of the Court as to what was the

specific role of the other petitioners with regard to any dispute

which may occur between the husband and the wife, as ultimately

it is the husband who is responsible for the well being and general

welfare of the wife i.e., opposite party no. 2, learned counsel was

not in a position to show any specific or direct allegation against

the other petitioners.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds that the petitioner no. 1, being the husband, is answerable

and responsible for the general well being of the complainant, who

is the wife and as far as the allegations are concerned, the same

cannot be said to be frivolous at their face value and the taking of

cognizance against him cannot be said to be bad in law requiring

any interference. Accordingly, the application on his behalf stands


Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22116 of 2014 dt.02-01-2019

8. However, as far as petitioners no. 3 to 7 are

concerned, the Court finds that their involvement is only to the

extent of they being relatives to the petitioner no. 1 as against

them, there is no specific allegation which would warrant them to

undergo the rigors of trial and the same would be an abuse of the

process of the Court.

9. Accordingly, the application on behalf of petitioners

no. 3 to 7 is allowed.

10. The order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura taking cognizance

under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint Case No. 89C of 2009, as far

as it relates to them, stands quashed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 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