SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Singeshwar Roy @ Bilayati Roy vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 17 December, 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1215 Year-2012 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura

Singeshwar Roy @ Bilayati Roy, son of Jatu Roy resident of Village – Uda
Kishunganj, Tola – Dohatwari Panchawati, P.S. – Uda Kishunganj, District

… … Petitioner/s

1. State Of Bihar

2. Usha Devi @ Kajal Devi D/o Bilash Yadav resident of Village and P.S. Uda
Kishunganj, District Madhepura.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Praveen Kumar Agrawal
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat App



Date : 17-12-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

APP for the State.

2 Petitioner’s counsel submits that the case has been

filed for quashing the order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate (for brevity, the Magistrate),

Madhepura in Complaint Case No 1215 of 2012. The Magistrate,

by the said order, has taken cognizance for the offences under

Sections 498A and Section494 of Indian Penal Code and process has been

issued against the petitioner. The allegations made in the

complaint by the wife of the petitioner is that she was married to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9840 of 2015 dt.17-12-2019

the petitioner 5 to 7 years prior to lodging of the complaint. It is

alleged that at the time of marriage, money and ornaments were

given. It is also alleged that after she came to her matrimonial

home, the in-laws started demanding additional dowry and that

two children, born out of the wedlock, died because they were not

given due care by the petitioner (husband of complainant). It is

further alleged that the petitioner has solemnized second marriage

with accused Kalpana Devi.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has not solemnized second marriage and that the

allegations are only out of suspicion. It is further submitted that

the petitioner is willing to keep the complainant. However, she

has refused to stay with him. The submission is that he has falsely

been implicated.

4 The submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel

are at best defence and factual denial of the allegations made in the

complaint petition. The order under challenge is the order taking

cognizance. It is trite law that at this stage, the Magistrate is only

required to see whether there is sufficient material/ingredients in

the complaint or first information report so as to arrive at a

subjective satisfaction regarding there being a prima facie case.

The specific allegations made in the complaint petition, therefore,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9840 of 2015 dt.17-12-2019

fully justify the taking of cognizance by the Magistrate under the

impugned order.

5 The submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel

are issues which the petitioner, without having any prejudice to the

observations made in this order, would be entitled to raise at the

appropriate stage which the Court shall be obliged to consider in

accordance with law.

6 This application is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)


Uploading Date
Transmission Date

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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