SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramjiwan Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 28 July, 2017

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34426 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -2367 Year- 2010 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

1. Ramjiwan Singh , Son of late Mohit Singh .

2. Rita Devi , wife of Ramjiwan Singh.

3. Nilam Devi @ Munni , daughter of Ramjiwan Singh. All resident of
village Shiv Nagar , Bus Stand , Nurmohiddinpur P.S Parsa Bajar , District
Patna .

…. …. Petitioners

1. The State of Bihar

2. Manoj Kumar , son of Sri Ram Jiwan Singh, resident of Mohalla- Shiv Nagar ,
Bus Stand , ( Nurmohiddinpur) Police .Station Parsa Bajar , District Patna at
present resident of mohalla – Gay ghat Golambar Danka Imli , Post office –
Gulzarbagh , Police Station – Alamganj , District – Patna .

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Dhananjay Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. P.K.Chaurasia, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP

Date: 28-07-2017


2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed

to quash the order 24.07.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna in

Complaint Case No.2367 of 2010 whereunder the learned Magistrate finding

prima-facie case for the offence under sections 342 and 379 of the IPC summoned

the petitioners.

3. It has been submitted that the petitioners are parents and sister

of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant is an agent in LIC and his wife is a

lawyer in Civil Court, Patna. The complaint along with his wife is residing at

Patna City quite unconcerned with the affairs of the petitioners. The Opposite

Party No.2 had filed Parsa Bazar P.S.Case No.182 of 2009 for the offence under
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34426 of 2014 dt.28-07-2017


sections 380, 323, 2341, 342, 448, 506 and 504/34 of the IPC. The matter was

investigated and the police submitted final form as case untrue and recommended

to initiate proceeding under Sections 182/211 IPC. The wife of Opposite Party

No.2 had filed a police case vide G.R.No.1425 of 2004 against the petitioners for

the offence under section 498A of the IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The said case was compromised and petitioners were acquitted on 24.04.2007.

The main dispute relates to landed property which was acquired by petitioner no.1

in his own name. The Opposite Party No.2 has filed several cases for taking share

in the property which are presently in possession of the petitioners. He has filed a

Partition Suit No.19 of 2008 which is pending in the Court of Munsif-Ist, Patna.

The allegation of wrongful confinement of Opposite Party No.2 and his wife and

committing theft of their property is omnibus and allegation has been found

untrue by the investigating officer. It has also been submitted that there is no

progress in the trial and the petitioners are being unnecessary harassed by the

Opposite Party No.2 and his wife by filing case after case. The learned court

below has passed the order in mechanical manner on the basis of protest petition

and so the impugned order is fit to be quashed. The learned APP on the other

opposed the submission.

4. On perusal of protest petition on record and annexures which

are annexed with this application, I find that the petitioners are parents and sister

of the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 and his minor son have filed

a title Partition Suit no.19 of 2008 against the petitioners. In the said suit the

Opposite Party No.2 has claimed one third share. His wife had filed case against

this petitioner for the offence under section 498A IPC which ended in acquittal of

these petitioners. The allegations of committing theft and wrongful confinement

of the Opposite Party No.2 and his family members do not find support from the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34426 of 2014 dt.28-07-2017


material collected in course of inquiry as it appears from the police report. There

are contradictions also in the statement of witnesses examined at the time of

enquiry. In such circumstance, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners in face

of pending civil suit for partition would be an abuse of the process of the Court

which cannot be sustained.

5. In view of above facts, the order taking cognizance as well as

criminal prosecution of the petitioners stands quashed. This criminal application

is accordingly, allowed

(Sanjay Kumar, J)


Uploading Date 01.08.2017
Transmission 01.08.2017

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