SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shashi Kant Kumar @ Shashikant And … vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 20 June, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5783 of 2015
Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-17 Year-2013 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sitamarhi

1. Shashi Kant Kumar @ Shashikant, Son of Rajeshwar Rai.

2. Rajeshwar Rai, Son of Late Ram Narayan Rai.

3. Bindiya Devi, Wife of Rajeshwar Rai.

4. Sandeep Kumar @ Chhotu @ Sandeep Rai @ Sanjeev Kumar, Son of
Rajeshwar Rai.

5. Sumitra Devi, Wife of Ajay Kumar.

6. Ranjana Kumari @ Ranjani Kumari Daughter of Rajeshwar Rai. All are
resident of Village- Jhitkahiya, P.S-Bathnaha, District -Sitamarhi at present
residing at Mela Road, Bhawedpur, Ward No. 21, P.S- Sitamarhi, District-
Sitamarhi.

7. Ajay Kumar, Son of Raj Narayan Rai, resident of Village- Andauli, P.S.-

Parihar, District- Sitamarhi.

8. Rani Kumari, Daughter of Satrughan Rai, resident of Village- Mahesh
Farakpur, P.S.- Runi Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anju Devi, Wife of Shashi Kant Kumar, Daughter of Ashok Rai, at present
residing at Village- Rajopatti, P.S. -Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-06-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned APP

for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5783 of 2015 dt.20-06-2019
2/6

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 dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Learned
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar,
Sitamarhi in Sitamarhi Mahila P.S. Case No. 17/13
(G.R. No. 2239/13) whereby and whereunder the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has
been pleased to take cognizance against the
petitioners for the offences under Sections 341,
Section323, Section494, Section498A, Section504 of the Indian Penal Code and
4 of the SectionDowry Prohibition Act and further be
pleased to direct the office to issue summons
against the accused persons and fixed the date as
21.10.2014 for their appearance.”

3. The opposite party no. 2 was married to the petitioner

no. 1 but later on things turned sour and she filed Sitamarhi

Mahila P S Case No. 17 of 2013, alleging demand of dowry,

torture, assault and attempt on her life.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

there is general and omnibus allegation, at least against the

petitioners no. 4 to 8, who have been made accused only because

they are related to the husband of the opposite party no. 2 i.e.,

petitioner no. 1. It was submitted that the parties have

compromised and the opposite party no. 2 has been paid Rs. 4

lakhs in terms of the order of the Court in Cr. Misc. No. 41396 of

2013 dated 20.08.2014, as directed by the Court while confirming
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5783 of 2015 dt.20-06-2019
3/6

the bail of the petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel relied upon a

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SectionGeeta Mehrotra v.

State of U.P. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 741, for the proposition

that in absence of any specific allegation and prima facie case

against co-accused, the proceedings are required to be quashed.

5. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners have

demanded dowry and have tortured the opposite party no. 2.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 informs

the Court that the opposite party no. 2 has again married.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

finds that all the petitioners cannot be given a clean chit, at least at

the present stage. The opposite party no. 2 was physically

handicapped and under such circumstances, she was married to

the petitioner no. 1, who at the relevant time was unemployed. It

is alleged that the father of the opposite party no. 2 was

instrumental in the petitioner no. 1 getting a job in the Army.

Thereafter, the allegation is that soon after getting a job, the

petitioners started torturing the opposite party no. 2 for further

dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs. This allegation appears to be quite

plausible, reasonable and believable, especially in the present

context of the society. The conduct of the petitioners, especially
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5783 of 2015 dt.20-06-2019
4/6

petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3, who are husband, father-in-law and

mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, that when the son was

unemployed, they were ready to marry a handicapped girl due to

various factors, which is open and known to the society, is quite

natural. It is equally believable that once the petitioner no. 1

became employed, suddenly the petitioners became wiser and

aware that he being in employment was entitled to certain dowry

as is the general custom prevailing in the society today. In this

context, the Court would refer to the allegation that there was

taunt hurled at the opposite party no. 2 for her being handicapped.

Thus, the petitioners pointing out to the physical disability of the

opposite party no. 2 and for keeping her in the matrimonial home

demanding Rs. 2 lakhs, in the considered opinion of the Court

does not appear to be an exaggeration or false. The Court would

also look at the issue from another angle. Had there been no

truth in the allegations, there is no reason whatsoever as to why a

physically handicapped girl after marriage would herself not live

in the matrimonial home and would desert her husband moreso,

when she was married and the husband was unemployed and after

employment when she was more secure, she would leave the

matrimonial home. This aspect has also weighed with the Court

while judging the truthfulness of the allegation. When, under such
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5783 of 2015 dt.20-06-2019
5/6

circumstances, a physically handicapped girl is married to an

unemployed youth because of a physical disability since no

employed youth at the relevant time would come forward to marry

her and when the husband gets a job, she cannot be expected to

leave the matrimonial home. There is no plausible logic or reason

for this. Thus, for her to have left the matrimonial home itself

speaks volumes with regard to the adverse condition which the

petitioners may have created being the family members of the

husband. As far as the allegations are concerned, stand taken on

behalf of the petitioners that it is general and omnibus and may be

covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta

Mehrotra (supra) is concerned, cannot be accepted as in the

present case in view of the discussions made hereinabove, there

appears to be truthfulness in the allegations made by opposite

party no. 2. However, as the petitioner no. 5 is the married sister

and the petitioner no. 7 is her husband living in another village in

the matrimonial home, the Court feels inclined to show indulgence

to them.

8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the

Court finds that the facts and circumstances of the present case are

distinguishable from the facts and circumstances in the case before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Thus, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5783 of 2015 dt.20-06-2019
6/6

said decision would not help the remaining petitioners no. 1, 2, 3,

4, 6 and 8 in the present case.

9. Accordingly, the application is allowed as far as

petitioners no. 5 and 7 are concerned. The entire criminal

proceeding arising out of Sitamarhi Mahila PS Case No. 17 of

2013 (GR No. 2239 of 2013), pending before the Court below at

Sitamarhi, including the order dated 19.09.2014 by which

cognizance has been taken, as far as it relates to the petitioners no.

5 and 7, stands quashed.

10. With regard to the rest of the petitioners, the

application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

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