IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41014 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -229 Year- 2008 Thana -PATLIPUTRA District- PATNA

1. Shiv Kumar Thakur @ Hanuman Thakur, son of Late Sakaldeep Narayan Thakur

2. Asha Devi, W/o Shiv Kumar Thakur @ Hanuman Thakur
Both resident of Mohalla New Area Jakkanpur near Laxmi Market, Police Station
Jakkanpur, District- Patna

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Manka Kumari d/o Raj Kumar Thakur, resident of Mohalla Manpura Thakur
Gali, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Dr.Manoj Kumar, Adv..
For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 09-10-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

APP for the State.

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order

dated 24.05.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Patna by which cognizance of the offences under Section

498A read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been

taken in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No.229 of 2008 and

summons have been issued against the petitioners.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners

would submit that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41014 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017 2

respectively. They have moved this Court for quashing of the order

taking cognizance mainly on the ground that after lodging of the

present case in the year 2010 when the opposite party no.2 lodged

another case being Domestic Violence Case No.7 of 2013, there was a

settlement/compromise between the opposite party no.2 and her

husband and by virtue of that compromise both of them are living

together peacefully. It is thus submission of the learned counsel for

the petitioners that continuation of the present case is not in the

interest of justice because after all it arises out of a matrimonial

discord and now that the parties have settled down their dispute the

whole family members particularly the parents of the husband should

also be allowed to live peacefully without facing prosecution. Even

otherwise, his submission is that the allegations against these

petitioners are vague and general in nature which were made not

because of any overt act or omission committed by them, but only

because they happen to be the parents of the husband.

Although the opposite party no.2 has appeared

through her advocate in this Court, but even on the last date when the

matter was called out no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party

no.2. Today also, there is no representation on her behalf, therefore

this Court is unable to verify the facts submitted on behalf of the

petitioners for quashing of the order taking cognizance in the interest
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41014 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017 3

of justice.

This being the position, this Court, instead of

interfering with the order taking cognizance, directs the learned court

below to proceed with the matter and if an application for discharge is

filed on behalf of the petitioners, the same may be considered after

giving an opportunity to the informant and a decision on the said

discharge petition be taken at the earliest preferably within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of this Court in the interest of

justice.

The application stands disposed off with the

observations and directions made above.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

Arvind/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 10.10.2017
Transmission 10.10.2017
Date