SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ved Prakash Singh Yadav & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 5 September, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27065 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -294 Year- 2014 Thana -VAISALI COM PLAINT CASE District-
VAISHALI(HAJIPUR)

1. Ved Prakash Singh Yadav, son of Putu Singh Yadav

2. Satyadeo Singh Yadav, son of Putu Singh Yadav

3. Nanhe Singh Yadav, son of Putu Singh Yadav

4. Angara Devi @ Anjana Devi, wife of Nanhe Singh Yadav

5. Kali Devi, wife of Satyadeo Singh Yadav
All are residents of village – Milawa, P.S. Puwayan, District – Sahjahanpur, Uttar
Pradesh.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Manju Devi, wife of Ranveer Singh Yadav, village – Milawa, P.S. – Puwayan,
District – Sahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, presently resides at the house of her
father namely Jagdish Das Kanaujiya, Village – Damodarpur, P.S. – Sarai,
District – Vaishali.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate.

Mrs. Bela Singh, Advocate.

For the opposite party No. 2: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.N. Pandey, A.P.P.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 05-09-2018

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated

13.11.2014 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Vaishali, in Trial No. 4246 of 2015 arising out of Complaint Case No.

294 of 2014, by which the learned Magistrate after holding enquiry

has found prima facie case against the petitioners along with three

other accused persons for the offence under Section 498A of the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.27065 of 2016 dt.05-09-2018

2/4

Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. In the complaint petition it is alleged that

complainant was married with Ranveer Singh Yadav about four years

ago according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage she went to

her sasural and gave birth to a son. Her husband lives in Delhi and

works in Private Company. She lived in her sasural with the

petitioners and other accused persons. The petitioners with other

accused persons started torturing her and also threatened that she

would not get her share in the paternal property of her husband. They

also made demand of dowry and told that if she wants to live in her

sasural she has to fulfill the demand of dowry. It is further alleged that

on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, she was forcibly ousted from

the house.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, counsel

for the opposite party No. 2 and State.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner

Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are cousin-brother-in-law (Chachera Dewar) and

petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are Chacheri Gotani of the complainant. They

have no concern with the affairs of the complainant’s family in the

alleged occurrence. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that

from complaint petition it appears that there is property dispute

between husband of the complainant and his family members.
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.27065 of 2016 dt.05-09-2018

3/4

5. The instant case has been filed making the

petitioners accused on account of aforesaid family dispute.

6. From the complaint petition it appears that

complainant has made allegation of demand of dowry and torture

against distant relation of her husband but not made accused either her

husband or parents-in-law or any of his family members.

7. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has appeared

and submitted that complainant was not allowed to live in the house.

The husband of the complainant lives in Delhi and works in a private

company. Petitioners are not allowing her to live in the sasural in

absence of her husband. The complainant is living in her Maikey.

8. The Solemn Affirmation of the complainant is

available in the complaint petition. Xerox copy of the deposition of

father of the complainant is also on record.

9. This Court after looking into allegation in the

complaint petition as well as Solemn Affirmation of the complainant

and statement of father of the complainant, who has been examined

during enquiry, finds that no allegation of any specific overt act is

made against the petitioners. The petitioners are distant relation of the

husband of complainant.

10. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.11.2014

passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali, in
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.27065 of 2016 dt.05-09-2018

4/4

Trial No. 4246 of 2015 arising out of Complaint Case No. 294 of

2014 along with the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners

is hereby quashed.

11. This Criminal Miscellaneous application is

accordingly allowed.

(Sanjay Priya, J)
S.Ali/-

AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 07/09/2018
Transmission 0709/2018
Date

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