Petitioner sought quashing of order rejecting discharge application in case for offences under 498A IPC. Court declined interference as investigation concluded with chargesheet filed.
None; application dismissed with liberty to raise contentions during trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13225 of 2014
====================================================== Chintu Kumar @ Chintu Pandey Son Of Jagata Nand Pandey Resident Of Village - Barki Kebai, P.S. - Shahjahanpur, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Jyoti (Kumari) Devi, D/O Dilip Kumar Resident Of Village - Chhoti Kebai, P.S. - Shahjahanpur, District - Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03/ 28-04-2014 The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna City in Shahjahanpur P.S. Case No. 29 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The informant-O.P. No. 2 married with the petitioner in December, 2013 but subsequently dowry demand was made. The informant was driven out of the matrimonial house and the petitioner started giving threatening for performing second marriage.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13225 of 2014 (3) dt.28-04-2014
2
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has never performed marriage with the informantO.P. No. 2 and before the learned court below no chit of paper has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 in support of the marriage.
It appears that on conclusion of investigation chargesheet was submitted under Section 498A against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions during trial.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
DKS/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Chintu Kumar @ Chintu Pandey
The State Of Bihar
Jyoti (Kumari) Devi
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
