Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Purnendu Singh, J
Parinita Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of dowry must be specific to avoid wrongful prosecution. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal representation emphasized reconciliation in matrimonial disputes. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. family members should not face prosecution without specific allegations. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. cognizance quashed due to lack of specificity in allegations. (Para 9) |
| 5. final application decision disposed as per prior findings. (Para 10) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-12-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred the application under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 01.06.2018 and its consequential order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali in Complaint Case No. 2410/2017 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence against the petitioner under Sections 4 98A /34 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the DP Act.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant was married to Satyam Prakash Singh (son of the petitioner) on 30.05.2013 after his divorce from his first wife namely Nidhi on 21.06.2012. It
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
