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
