SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Randhir Vishwakarma And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 16 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38922 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1970 Year-2012 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna

1. Randhir Vishwakarma S/o Devendra Vishwakarma

2. Devendra Vishwakarma S/o Late Sitaram Vishwakarma

3. Suraj Mani Devi W/o Devendra Vishwakarma

4. Ranjit Vishwakarma S/o Devendra Vishwakarma

5. Anita Devi W/o Ranjit Vishwakarma

6. Guriya Devi @ Manorma Devi D/o Devendra Vishwakarma, W/o
Bindeshwari Vishwakarma

7. Bindeshwari Vishwakarma @ Vineshwar Viswakarma S/o Arjun
Vishwakarma

8. Madhuri Devi W/o Mant Vishwakarma

9. Mant Vishwakarma S/o Late Dhyan Vishwakarma
All Resident of Village Lala Badsara, Police Station Dulhin Bazar, District
Patna.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar.

2. Renu Devi D/o Dilip Vishwakarma, W/o Randhir Vishwakarma Resident of
Village Bairiya, Police Station Gaurichak, District Patna, at present C/o
Surendra Prasad Sipahiji, Sipara, Police Station Beaur, District Patna.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar No. 1, APP
For Opposite party No. 2 : None

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-01-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

A.P.P. for the State.

2. Despite notice having been served on the opposite

party no. 2 and learned counsel also entering appearance, nobody

was present when the matter was taken up and heard.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38922 of 2014 dt.16-01-2019
2/5

3. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section

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

relief:

“That this is an application for quashing the
order dated 20.12.12 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate Patna in
Complaint Case No. 1970(C) of 2012 by which
learned Magistrate has took the cognizance for
offences alleged under section 498(A) of the
Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.”

4. The allegations against the petitioners by the opposite

party no. 2, who is the wife of petitioner no. 1, is of assault and

torture and demand of dowry and specifically against petitioners

no. 1 and 4 of also trying to establish physical relationship with the

opposite party no. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

opposite party no. 2 herself has left the matrimonial home and is

residing with another person somewhere else. It was submitted that

even the allegations made are general and omnibus and some of

the petitioners are unconnected with the family and do not reside

in the matrimonial home and have been made accused with mala

fide intention. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner no. 1

himself is a poor person and, thus, does not have much landed

property which would show that the allegations made against
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38922 of 2014 dt.16-01-2019
3/5

others of trying to kill the children of the opposite party no. 2 for

grabbing the property is not correct. Learned counsel submitted

that the matter having been earlier sent for mediation, the opposite

party no. 2 was offered one katha of land, which she refused to

take and, thus, the mediation failed.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that from

the reading of the complaint, it cannot be said that the allegations

are cosmetic as many facts have been stated which appear to be

quite natural, especially the initial maltreatment on the birth of a

girl child. Learned counsel submitted that for making an allegation

with regard to attempt to establish physical relationship against the

father-in-law and brother-in-law by the opposite party no. 2 is not

easy and the same having been made cannot be brushed aside

lightly as it is not uncommon that such things happen in the

society. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation of

the opposite party no. 2 living with another person and, thus, not

wanting to return and the complaint being mala fide is also proved

wrong from the fact that, as has been submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, she refused one katha of land which

clearly shows that if she had really not wanted to come back to the

matrimonial home and live with another person then she would
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38922 of 2014 dt.16-01-2019
4/5

have readily taken one katha of land and not refused the same.

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

the other persons who have been made accused, barring the

husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law, i.e., petitioners no. 1, 2

and 4, he was not in a position to controvert that nothing specific

has been stated against them.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

finds that as far as petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned, there

being specific allegations and the same not being of a frivolous

nature, it cannot be said, at this stage, that they are fit to be

quashed.

8. Accordingly, the application, on behalf of petitioners

no. 1, 2 and 4 stands dismissed.

9. As far as petitioners no. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are

concerned, the Court finds that just because of their relationship or

proximity to the in-laws of the opposite party no. 2, they have also

been made accused in the present case, but against them nothing

substantive has been stated or is made out to warrant them facing a

full-fledged trial.

10. For reasons aforesaid, the application, on behalf of

petitioners no. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 is allowed. The criminal
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38922 of 2014 dt.16-01-2019
5/5

proceeding arising out of complaint case no. 1970 (C) of 2012

including order dated 20.12.2012 by which cognizance has been

taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as far as it relates to them, stands

quashed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T

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