Partly allowed

Ramotar Paswan and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC8 Dec 2017CR. MISC./11354/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the cognizance order dated 2.12.2014 against the mother-in-law petitioner Shakuntala Devi due to lack of specific allegations against her, while allowing the proceedings to continue against the husband Ranveer Kumar in a dowry-related case.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including cognizance order dated 2.12.2014 is set aside with respect to petitioner No. 2 Shakuntala Devi.

Ramotar Paswan and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11354 of 2015

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -206 Year- 2014 Thana -MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE DistrictMADHEPURA

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Ramotar Paswan S/o Late Ramtusi Paswan

¶5

Shakuntala Devi W/o Ramotar Paswan

¶6

Ranveer Kumar Son of Ramotar Paswan. All are resident of VillageAmbedkar Nagar, P.O. - Lakhminia, P.s. Balia, District- Begusarai.

¶7

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar

¶10

Chanda Kumari@ Manni Kumari daugther of Satyanarayan Paswan Resident of Village- Ambedkar Tola(Murliganj), P.s.- Balia, DistrictBegusarai.

¶11

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Naresh Singh For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar-I(APP) For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Pawan Kumar

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 08-12-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite party No. 2.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1, father-in-law of the complainant is dead and the remaining petitioners are husband and mother-in-law.

¶16

The petitioners seek quashing of the cognizance order dated 2.12.2014 passed by SDJM Madhepura in Complaint Case No. 206 of 2014, thereby taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A, 420 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11354 of 2015 (3) dt.08-12-2017

¶18

¶19

The brief fact giving rise to the case is that Opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint alleging therein that after her marriage solemnized with Ranveer Kumar, petitioner No. 3, on 14.2.2013 the accused persons started torturing her in connection with further demand of dowry. It is alleged that her husband always used to come in intoxicated condition, used to abuse and assault her and due to his behaviour she got frustrated and called her parents and went back to her parents’ home. On the assurance not to repeat such behaviour she came back to her matrimonial home but she was again tortured in connection with further demand of motor vehicle, fridge and Laptop.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no specific allegation against the mother-in-law as well as no question of any demand of four-wheeler and other items as the complainant’s husband is a student.

¶21

Contrary to that learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite party No. 2 submits that the husband always used to demand dowry and torture the complainant.

¶22

Having considered the rival submission and on perusal of the record, the Court finds that there is specific acquisation against Ranveer Kumar, husband of the complainant, but not against the mother-in-law Shakuntala Devi, so entire criminal proceeding inclusive of the cognizance order dated 2.12.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 206 of 2014 pending in the Court of SDJM Madhepura is set aside with respect to petitioner No. 2 Shakuntala

¶23

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11354 of 2015 (3) dt.08-12-2017

¶24

¶25

Devi. However the criminal proceeding will proceed further against the husband Ranveer Kumar in accordance with law.

¶26

The application stands disposed of.

¶27

(Arun Kumar, J.)

¶28

Snkumar/-

¶29

U T

Ramotar Paswan and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramotar Paswan and Ors. 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

Ashanand Kumar @ Ashanand and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sushila Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Dhanraj Singh and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ramawadhesh Prasad Kushwaha Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rana Rakesh Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.