SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rohit Ranjan Sinha @ Bobby And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 20 February, 2019

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
2/6

case 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

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