Allowed

Ashok Kumar Mishra @ Phuti Mishra and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC19 Nov 2016CR. MISC./12331/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna quashed the order of cognizance summoning petitioners for offences includingSection 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that since the parties had settled the dispute and the settlement amount was fully complied with, continuing the litigation was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The order of cognizance dated 22.04.2013 passed by the SDJM, Begusarai was quashed, and both connected criminal miscellaneous petitions were allowed.

Ashok Kumar Mishra @ Phuti Mishra and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar… — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12331 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2228 Year- 2012 Thana -BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CSAE DistrictBEGUSARAI

¶3

====================================================== 1. Ashok Kumar Mishra @ Phuti Mishra S/O Late Basdeo Mishra 2. Manju Mishra, W/O Ashok Kumar Mishra Both Resident Of VillageShikandarpur Rajoura, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Amrit, D/O Nagendra Pathak, Resident Of Village- Amba, P.S.- Teghra, District- Begusarai .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.3039 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2228 Year- 2012 Thana -BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CSAE DistrictBEGUSARAI ====================================================== 1. Abhishek Mishra @ Abhishek Son of Ashok Kumar Mishra @ Phuti Mishra resident of village - Shikandarpur Rajoura, P.S. Muffasil, District - Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Amrit D/o Nagendra Pathak resident of village - Amba, P.S. Teghra, District - Begusarai .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No.12331 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyanand Shukla (APP) (In Cr.Misc. No.3039 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr.Tiwary (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER

¶4

6 19-11-2016 Since both these petitions have been heard together as they arise out of same Complaint Case, are being decided and disposed of by a common order.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for OP

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12331 of 2014 (6) dt.19-11-2016

¶7

¶8

No.2/complainant.

¶9

Against the order of cognizance, the other family members have filed Cr.Misc. No. 12331/2014 while her husband, Abhishek Mishra @ Abhishek has filed Cr.Misc. No. 3039/2015 for quashing of the order of the cognizance dated 22.04.2013 passed by SDJM, Begusarai in connection with Complaint Case No. 2228(C)/2012 whereby and whereunder all the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379/34 and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶10

From perusal of the order dated 12.08.2015, it is evident that parties have settled their dispute and further as is evident, concluded to separate themselves and for that a sum of Rs. 4,85,000/- has been identified as the sum in lieu of full and final settlement. The aforesaid term has already been complied with at the end of petitioners and to substantiate the same, supplementary affidavit has been filed at their behalf divulging the fact that a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- has been paid through Demand Draft No. 104551 issued by ICICI Bank, Patna while bankers Cheque No. 468024 appertaining to Rs. 2 Lacs has also been issued in favour of Amrit, O.P. No.2, wife. A specific order dated 06.10.2015 as well as 07.10. 2015 relating to Complaint Case have also been filed to substantiate the same. From perusal of the same,

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12331 of 2014 (6) dt.19-11-2016

¶12

¶13

it is evident that O.P. No.2 has already received the same.

¶14

Considering the nature of the lis inconsonance with the changed scenario which ultimately concluded in its final settlement and further perceiving litigation to be amongst inter se as well as considering the principle so decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on this very score, the order of the cognizance is, hereby, quashed.

¶15

Consequent thereupon, both the petitions are allowed.

¶16

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

¶17

perwez

¶18

U T

Ashok Kumar Mishra @ Phuti Mishra and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Mishra @ Phuti Mishra and Anr. v. 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

Vijay Bind Vs The State Of Bihar

Kameshwar Bind Vs The State Of Bihar

Rinku Kumari and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Birendra Chaubey Vs The State Of Bihar

Rupesh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar