SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Pat) 785

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
(20.6.2012)
Cri. Misc. No. 12299 of 2012
Manoj Kumar Sinha & Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Bihar & Anr. : Opp. Parties

Advocates:
For the Petitioners: M/s Rajendra Narain, Anju Narain.
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. N.K. Agarwal.
For the State : Mr. Ram Naresh Roy.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860–Section 498-A–Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973–Section 482–Cruelty–Cognizance–Rejection of discharge petition–No specific overt act attributed against petitioners except petitioner-husband–It is dificult to say that except petitioner-husband as to which petitioner has committed what offence–Impugned order passed against petitioners except petitioner-husband quashed. (Paras 16 to 21)

       (2009)10 SCC 184; (2010)7 SCC 667–Referred.

       

ORDER

This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by Sri Ajay Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Purnia in Complaint Case no. 605/2002 by which and whereunder he rejected the petition dated 16.11.2010 filed on behalf of petitioners for their discharge from the above stated case.

2. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that opposite party no.2, namely, Anima Kumari Sinha filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case no. 605/2002 on 10.6.2002 against the petitioners and one Braj Nandan Prasad Sinha @ Braj Nandan Prasad alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner no.1 on 20.6.1995 according to Hindu rites and customs but before solemnization of marriage, accused Braj Nandan Prasad Sinha, father of petitioner no.1, demanded Rs one lakh as dowry and after that her father any- how managed Rs 71,000/- and handed over the same to him and only thereafter, marriage could be solemnized on the condition of fulfillment of the rest amount within three months. After marriage, she went to her in-laws house but she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for bringing colour TV and cash of Rs 29,000/-. She informed her father and brother as well as other relatives regarding ill-treatment and cruelty subjected to her by her in-laws. Lastly on 9.12.1995, she was driven out by her in-laws from her matrimonial home and she came to her parental home. After the aforesaid incident, petitioner no.2, who happens to be her dewar, continued his regular visit to her parental home and assured the entire family members that the matter would be settled up very soon. Her father tried to patch up the dispute by sending her to her in-laws house several times but she was not allowed to remain at her matrimonial home. A panchyati was also held to solve the dispute of the parties but her in-laws were adamant not to allow her to stay at her matrimonial home without fulfillment of the above stated demands. Furthermore, it is alleged that petitioner no.2 on pretext of settlement got written several letters by her and on the assurance of petitioner nos.2 and 5, she again went to her matrimonial home in the month of June, 2000 and lived there for about four days but she was again subjected to cruelty and harassment and ousted from there. She sent a legal notice to petitioner no.1 and after that she filed the above stated case.

3. The above stated case was enquired into and a prima facie case under section 498A of the IPC was found against the petitioners and co-accused Braj Nandan Prasad Sinha and they were summoned to face trial.

4. Petitioners and the aforesaid co-accused Braj Nandan Prasad Sinha filed criminal revision before the sessions court against the summoning order which was dismissed and thereafter petitioners filed Cr. Misc. no.30975/2004 against the order of the revisional court but the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous case was dismissed by this court vide order dated 24.11.2005 giving liberty to the petitioners to raise their points including point of previous suit at the stage of section 245 of the Cr.P.C with direction to learned trial court to consider the above stated points of the petitioners at the time of framing of the charge.

5. Petitioners filed petition for their discharge before the trial court on 16.11.2010 but the aforesaid petition was dismissed by the learned trial court passing impugned order dated 23.12.2011 against which this quashing petition has been filed.

6. At the time of hearing on the point of admission, opposite party no.2 made her appearance through her counsel and both the parties were heard on the point of admission and with consent of both the parties, this petition is being disposed off on admission stage itself.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that according to case of opposite party no.2, her marriage was solemnized on 20.6.1995 and she was ousted from her mat




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top