IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38572 of 2013
Arising out of P.S. Case No. – 190 Year – 2012 Thana – PHULWARI District – PATNA

1. Sudhir Kumar Srivastava @ Sudhir Kumar, Son of Late Mahanand Prasad

2. Smit. Pramila Devi @ Pramila Srivastava, Wife of Sudhir Kumar Srivastava @
Sudhir Kumar

3. Abhishek Kumar @ Sonu @ Abhishek, Son of Suhir Kumar Srivastava @
Sudhir Kumar
All are residents of Mitra Mandal Colony, Saket Bihar, Police Station –
Phulwari Sharif, District – Patna
…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Poonam Sinha, wife of Randhir Kumar Srivastava, Daughter of Late Sitaram
Lal, resident of Mohalla – Kanakpur, near Jain College Eastern Gate, Ara,
Police Station Nawada, District Bhojpur
…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 14-09-2017

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioners has challenged in this application, under

Section 482 Cr.P.C, the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 190

of 2012 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners

under Sections 498A, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as

Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are relations

of the husband.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the husband of the informant was also an accused in this case and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38572 of 2013 dt.14-09-2017

2 /3

during the pendency of the case, the husband and wife settled their

dispute and they finally decided to part away from each other on

payment of permanent alimony of Rs.8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs)

by the husband. The husband has already paid the aforesaid eight

lakhs in four installments. Fully detailed in the supplementary

affidavit filed by the petitioners. Further submission of the learned

counsel is that in view of the settlement of dispute between the

spouse, the continuance of criminal prosecution against the petitioners

would amount to unnecessary harassment as there is tendency

growing in the society to robe the family members also in criminal

litigation whenever there is dispute between the husband and wife as

observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Geeta Mahrotra Anr. vs.

State of U.P. Anr. reported in 2013(1) PLJR 10 (SC).

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that

the petitioners are still in possession of the Stridhana of the

complainant which they should be directed to handover first before

quashing the criminal prosecution.

5. Considering the fact that no objection was raised before

the competent authority regarding Stridhana of opposite party no. 2 at

the time to settlement of dispute with the husband as well as

considering the fact that the real dispute has been reconciled between

the husband and the wife, hence, criminal prosecution of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38572 of 2013 dt.14-09-2017

3 /3

petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order as well as the entire

criminal prosecution stands quashed and this application is allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

Kundan/-

AFR/NAFR N.A.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 20.09.2017
Transmission 20.09.2017
Date