SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shurendra Trivedi And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 29 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70155 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-499 Year-2017 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai

1. Shurendra Trivedi, son of Late Ram Prakash Trivedi.

2. Pramila Kumari, wife of Shurendra Trivedi. Both Resident of Village-

Rampur Dayal Bhagwanpur Tola, P.S. Piar, District- Muzaffarpur.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. State of Bihar.

2. Sweta Kumari, wife of Shiwam Kumar, Daughter of Ram Pravesh Singh,
Resident of Village- Rahatpur, P.S.- Baliya, District- Begusarai.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nachiketa Jha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate.

Mrs. Madhuri Kumari, Advocate.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2020
Heard the parties.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for

quashing of the order dated 20.01.2018 whereby the learned

Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai has taken

cognizance against the petitioners and one more co-accused for

the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with

Complaint Case No. 499 of 2017.

Petitioners are parents of Shivam Kumar, the

husband of the complainant. By the same order, the court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70155 of 2018 dt.29-01-2020
2/4

did not take cognizance against other family members on

identical material disclosed in the complaint petition and

statement on oath of the complainant as well as in the evidence

of enquiry witnesses.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners have no concern with the dispute between two

spouse and for that reason false case of demand of dowry and

torture has been lodged after a year of the marriage.

Learned counsel for the complainant (opposite

party no.2) submits that specific allegation is there against the

petitioners in Para-11 and 16 of the complaint petition and in

Para-5 of the statement on oath of the complainant. In the

aforesaid paragraph, complainant has stated that on one

occasion, the petitioners had also asked her to call her father on

telephone to fulfill the demand and on another occasion

kerosene oil was poured on her body to burn her, however no

one succeeded on alarm of the complainant.

In the case of Shiv Jee Rai vs. The State of Bihar

Anr. Reported in 2013 (3) PLJR 139, a Bench of this Court

was confronted with similar factual position and the Bench

considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70155 of 2018 dt.29-01-2020
3/4

Another reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 3363 and in the case of

Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of 2012 and observed that

it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions

of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints

arisen out of matrimonial dispute. The tendency of over

implication has become affair of the day and unfortunately at

the time of filing of the complaint the implications and

consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant

that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment,

agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close

relations.

No doubt the complainant has made averment in

the complaint petition against the petitioners also who are old

parents of the husband. Prosecution of the petitioners would not

serve any purpose rather would come in the way of restitution of

conjugal life, if any such chance arises in future. The main

dispute is between the husband and the wife.

Considering the entire facts as well as the ratio

decided in the above noted cases, in my view, the criminal

prosecution of the petitioners would amount to abuse of the

process of the Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70155 of 2018 dt.29-01-2020
4/4

Hence, impugned order is hereby quashed against

the petitioners only and this application stands allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

mantreshwar/-

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 01.02.2020
Transmission Date 01.02.2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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