IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5171 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sheikhpura ======================================================

Md. Shamsher @ Shamsher Alam Late Habibullah Resident of Village-

Asthana, P.S.- Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar Bihar

2. Kahkashah Parveen Md. Sadab R/O-Tarchha Pahartalli P.O.P.S-Sheikhpura Dist-Sheikhpura ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Najmul Hodda, Advocate Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

5 20-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. None had appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 despite valid service of notice.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.11.2018 passed in G.R. NO. 1081/2017 arising out of Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No. 32 of 2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sheikhpura rejecting the petition dated

09.08.2018 filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Kahkasha Parween, was married to the petitioner, Md. Shamsher Alam, in the year 2006 at village Asthana. After some time, the petitioner began demanding dowry and started to assault the informant. Subsequently, the petitioner left the informant two years ago and began living separately. The informant has one child from the marriage.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this fabricated case due to the personal motives of the informant. He further submits that after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 498A, 494, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and cognizance was taken by the learned Court under the same sections. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to the ongoing civil and criminal disputes, particularly with one Md. Islam, the cousin brother of the informant, arising out of T.S. No. 26 of 2009, Case No. 153C of 2009, and Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 01 of 2016.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the first marriage of the informant was solemnized with Jabir Hasan in the year 2000 in accordance with Muslim law and rites. From this marriage, the informant has two children. He further submits that it is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant remarried the petitioner in 2006, concealing the fact of her first marriage. He further submits that when the first husband, Jabir Hasan, came to know about the second marriage, he protested. Subsequently, within five days of the alleged second marriage, the informant resumed living with her first husband, Jabir Hasan. Thus, the second marriage was effectively ended in 2006. It is further submitted that after some years, the petitioner married one Seema Khatoon, a widow.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after twelve years, Md. Islam allegedly conspired and traveled to Patna to pressure Jabir Hasan (the first husband), urging him to file this false case. As a result, a fabricated and forged case was instituted against the petitioner. It is further submitted that on 09.08.2018, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from this case. However, the learned Court below, without considering the merits and available evidence, rejected the petition for discharge vide order dated 03.11.2018 in G.R. No. 1081/2017.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has relied upon a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Revision No. 1506 of 2019 (Md. Shamser @ Md Shamsher Mansoori V/s