SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sonali Sinha @ Guria And Ors vs The State Of Bihar Though … on 11 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.489 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2018 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi

1. Sonali Sinha @ Guria Wife of Shailendra Kumar Sinha

2. Priti Devi Wife of Sumit Sinha

3. Kanti Devi Wife of Late Shatis Prasad Sinha

4. Indu Devi Wife of Vijay Sinha
All Resident of Village – Nuruddinganj, P.S.- Malsalami, District –
Patna

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Home Govt.

of Bihar, Patna

2. The Superintendent of Police, Dist- Sitamarhi

3. The Officer in Charge of Police Station Sitamarhi

4. The Investigation Officer of Sitamarhi Police Station Dist- Sitamarhi

… … Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Nadim Seraj, GP-5

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-03-2019

The defects, as pointed out by the registry, are

ignored.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for the State.

3. This application under Article 226 of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.489 of 2019 dt.11-03-2019
2/4

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for

quashing the first information report (for short ‘FIR’) of

Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 175 of 2018 registered under Sections

341, 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code ( for short ‘IPC’)

as also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the FIR has been instituted on the basis of a complaint

without ensuring as to whether there was prior compliance of

Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(for short ‘Cr.P.C’). He submitted that the complainant had not

stated on oath that prior to the institution of the complaint, he

had visited the police station for institution of the FIR and on

refusal by the Station House Officer, he had transmitted the

substance of the complaint to the Superintendent of Police

concerned.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State

submitted that the allegation made in the complaint clearly

attracts the ingredients of a cognizable offence. The complainant

had not requested the court for referring the complaint to the

police for institution of an FIR rather the court itself thought it

proper that the matter needs investigation and referred the

complaint to the police for investigation. Under such a
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.489 of 2019 dt.11-03-2019
3/4

circumstance, there is no necessity of prior compliance of

Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the

State. The complainant had stated in the complaint that she was

married to one Suraj Kumar Singh on 20.11.2017 as per Hindu

rites and customs. After the marriage, she was being subjected

to cruelty in her matrimonial home by her husband and relatives

including the petitioner. The allegation made in the complaint

do attracts ingredients of the offences punishable under Section

498A of the IPC as also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers

conferred under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. referred the

complaint to the police for investigation pursuant to which the

FIR has been instituted. Apparently, the complaint has not been

referred to the police on mere asking by the complainant. Under

such circumstance, it was not necessary in law to first take steps

under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. before filing of

the complaint.

7. In that view of the matter, I do not see any

illegality in the order whereby the Magistrate referred the case

to the police for institution of the FIR or institution of the FIR
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.489 of 2019 dt.11-03-2019
4/4

pursuant to the order of the court.

8. The application, being devoid of any merit,

is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Md. S/SKSuman.

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.03.2019
Transmission Date 13.03.2019

Leave a Reply

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

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