IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15847 of 2014
Arising Out of Case No.-2789C Year-2012 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
1. Rohit Ranjan Sinha @ Bobby and Ors Son Of Kamla Kant Prasad Sinha @
Lallu Da
2. Kamla Kant Prasad Sinha @ Lallu Da, Son Of Late Parmeshari Prasad Sinha
3. Lali Sinha Wife Of Kamla Kant Prasad Sinha @ Lallu Da
4. Rajiv Sinha Son Of Kamla Kant Prasad Sinha @ Lallu Da
5. Sahil Sinha @ Sonu Son Of Kamla Kant Prasad Sinha @ Lallu Da
All Resident Of Mohalla – Gilanpura, P.S.- Dumka Town, District – Dumka
6. Nilam Sinha @ Neelu Sinha Wife Of Late Bachhan Resident Of Mohalla –
Jakkanpur Near Shiv Mandir P.S.- Jakkanpur, District – Patna
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Shyamali Sinha @ Mini Wife Of Rohit Ranjan Sinha @ Bobby Daughter Of
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Resident Of Rajiv Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District –
Patna
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-02-2019
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
relief:
“That this is an application for quashing the order of
taking cognizance dated 08.11.2012 passed by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in
Complaint Case No. 2789(C) /12 whereby a prima facie
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15847 of 2014 dt.20-02-2019
2/6case is found against the petitioners under section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and a direction was issued for issuance
of summon against them and consequently for quashing
the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in
connection with present case.”
3. The allegation against the petitioners is general and
omnibus of demand of dowry, torture and specifically against
petitioner no. 1, who is the husband, and also petitioner no. 2, who
is the father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it
was the opposite party no. 2 who had willingly deserted the
husband i.e., petitioner no. 1 and despite his repeated attempts to
get her back, she did not come. It was further submitted that the
allegation with regard to dowry is totally false. Learned counsel
submitted that the main cause for the opposite party no. 2 to file
the case was that she wanted to abort the pregnancy but the
petitioner no. 1 insisted her not to do. It was further submitted that
her behavior in the matrimonial home with the relatives of
petitioner no. 1 was not good and that she herself wanted to be in
her parental home rather than in the matrimonial home. It was
further submitted that the petitioner no. 2 had filed Informatory
Petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka being
Informatory Petition No. 62 of 2011 on 30.04.2011 with regard to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15847 of 2014 dt.20-02-2019
3/6
such mischievous activity and misbehavior of opposite party no. 2
and her parents. Attention was also drawn by learned counsel
towards the so called letter written by the petitioner no. 2 dated
15.07.2011 to the opposite party no. 2 asking her to return.
Learned counsel further submitted that in the supplementary
affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, copy of the order dated
23.01.2017 in Matrimonial Case No. 189 of 2015 would show that
the divorce case filed by the opposite party no. 2 has also been
decreed.
5. On a query of the Court to learned counsel for the
petitioners as to how the letter written by the petitioner no. 2 and
the Informatory Petition filed by him was of any help to them
since after filing the Informatory Petition on 30.04.2011, he is said
to have written to the opposite party no. 2 on 15.07.2011, which
clearly shows that he was not bothered about the family reputation
since more than three months prior to writing a letter, he himself
had already filed a formal Informatory Petition before the Court at
Dumka and also as to despite entering appearance in the divorce
case, the same was not contested and further no appeal has been
filed, learned counsel could not show any valid reason. However,
learned counsel submitted that with regard to petitioners no. 3 to 6,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15847 of 2014 dt.20-02-2019
4/6
there is absolutely no specific allegation and the same is totally
vague, general and omnibus.
6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the Court below has
found material against the petitioners and rightly taken
cognizance.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
submitted that as far as the petitioner no. 1, who is the husband
and petitioner no. 2, who is the father-in-law of the opposite party
no. 2, are concerned, there are specific instances of torture and
demand of dowry. With regard to others, he could not controvert
the fact that there is no direct or specific allegation.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
finds that against the petitioners no. 1 and 2, there is direct
allegation which, at this stage, cannot be said to be either
frivolous, unreasonable or unbelievable. First and foremost, the
petitioner no. 1, being the husband and the couple cohabiting for
sometime and thereafter no steps being taken by the petitioner no.
1 for getting the opposite party no. 2 to come back to live with him
and only a vague statement in this application that he was
regularly requesting her to come back does not show bona fide
with regard to such stand. Moreover, the allegation that due to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15847 of 2014 dt.20-02-2019
5/6
opposite party no. 2 wanting to abort, the differences started, is
also unbelievable for the reason, that soon after the pregnancy, she
admittedly started living with her parents and thus, if at all, she
wanted to terminate the pregnancy, nothing stopped her from
doing so. Further, with regard to petitioner no. 2, there is specific
allegation of him leaving her at Patna first while coming from
Bangalore and secondly from Dumka and demanding dowry and
also of Rs. 2,30,000/- having been transferred directly into his
account by the father of opposite party no. 2, the Court finds that,
for the present, there being prima facie material, taking cognizance
and issuing process against the petitioners no. 1 and 2, cannot be
said to be infirm in law.
9. Coming to the prayer of petitioners no. 3 to 6, they
being relatives of the husband of petitioner no. 1, against whom
there is neither any direct allegation of demand of dowry nor
torture and only vague and passing reference in general terms have
been made, the Court finds that allowing the criminal proceeding
to continue against them would be an abuse of the process of the
Court.
10. For reasons aforesaid, the application, as far as
petitioners no. 1 and 2 are concerned, stands dismissed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15847 of 2014 dt.20-02-2019
6/6
11. With regard to petitioners no. 3 to 6, the application
is allowed. The entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Complaint Case No. 2789(C) of 2012 along with the order dated
08.11.2012 by which cognizance has been taken, as far as it relates
to them, stand quashed.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
