Dismissed

Sayed Hezber Ali @ Saifi Ali and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC15 Apr 2014CR. MISC./9473/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Patna, in a criminal miscellaneous petition, considered the quashing of an order rejecting a discharge application. The court held that there were sufficient materials on record and reasons for rejection, thus finding no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of rejection of discharge petition dismissed.

Sayed Hezber Ali @ Saifi Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar… — Domestic Violence | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9473 of 2011

¶3

=================================================== 1. Sayed Hezber Ali @ Saifi Ali Son of Syed Akbar Ali, Resident of Mohalla Bari Haweli, P.O. Gujari, P.S. Khajekalan, Patnacity, District- Patna. 2. Syed Akbar Ali, S/o Late Nawabzada Sayed Mohammad Mehdi, Resident of Mohalla- Bari Haweli, P.O.-Gujari, P.S.Khajekalan, Patna City, District- Patna. 3. Shabana Fahma, W/o Sayed Akbari Ali, Resident of Mohalla Bari Haweli, P.O. Gujari, P.S. Khajekalan, Patnacity, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Eram Haider, Daughter of Ali Ahmad, Resident of Anishabad, S-2, Ali Nagar, P.S.-Gardanibagh, Town and District- Patna.

¶4

.... .... Opposite Parties

¶5

=================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, APP Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr.Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶6

18. 15-04-2014 Heard Sri N.K.Agrawal, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sanjeet Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for complainant/opp. party no. 2.

¶7

In the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”), three petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated 30-01-2011 passed by the learned Sub

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9473 of 2011 (18) dt.15-04-2014

¶9

2/3

¶10

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “Magistrate”) in Complaint Case No. 2806[C] of 2007. By the said order, learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of petitioners.

¶11

The petitioner no. 1, in the present case, is husband of complainant/opp. party no. 2 and petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are father-in-law & mother-in-law respectively of complainant/opp. party no. 2.

¶12

While making a prayer for quashing of order of rejection of discharge petition, the learned senior counsel for petitioners has argued that the present complaint was filed after the divorce was given by petitioner no. 1 to complainant. It has been argued that only with a view to falsely implicate the petitioners, a false case has been filed after suppressing relevant facts. It has further been argued that the complainant had voluntarily left the house of her in-laws, when she was divorced by the petitioner no.1.

¶13

Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/opp. party no. 2 submits that the defence of the petitioners that divorce has taken place, has been disputed by the complainant

¶14

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9473 of 2011 (18) dt.15-04-2014

¶15

3/3

¶16

before the court below. He further submits that at the moment, this Court is required to see as to whether order impugned suffers with any illegality or not. He submits that order impugned categorically discloses reasons for rejection of discharge petition. Moreover, during evidence, before charge, number of witnesses have been examined and have supported the case of the complainant and as such, the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the petition.

¶17

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that earlier on number of occasions, the case was adjourned to enable both the parties to settle the dispute outside the Court and since, it has been failed, the matter was heard on merit. On perusal of the complaint petition as well as the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that there were sufficient materials on record. Moreover, order of rejection of discharge petition specifies the reason for rejection of the same. I do not find any ground for interference.

¶18

The petition stands dismissed.

¶19

(Rakesh Kumar, J.)

¶20

Anay

Sayed Hezber Ali @ Saifi Ali and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Hezber Ali @ Saifi Ali and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tribhuwaan Tiwary Vs Chandragupta Ashok Vardhan and O

Mohd. Ruhullah and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Anisa Khatoon and Ors. Vs Syed Sultan and Ors.

Amarendra Kumar Aman Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Amit Kumar Sahay @ Amit Ranjan and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar

Ajeet Prasad @ Ajit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.