Petitioners sought quashing of an order finding a prima facie case under Sections 498A, 494 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bench found no merit as the magistrate considered evidence properly and no illegality was shown.
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.2494 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -745 Year- 2012 Thana -VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR)
======================================================
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh (App)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
The petitioners filed this petition for quashing the order dated 11.12.2012 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur found prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1-Sunaina Devi is the mother-in-law and the petitioner no.4- Renu Devi is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant. The petitioner no.2- Menka Devi is the second wife of Tunturn Paswan, the husband of the complainant, and the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2494 of 2015 (2) dt.16-03-2017
2/2
petitioner no.3 is the husband of the complainant.
The complainant made specific allegation against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Additional P.P. submitted that the complainant and her witnesses made specific allegation against all the petitioners that they subjected to complainant to all sorts of torture for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. The husband of the complainant also solemnized 2nd marriage and the learned court below after taking into consideration the materials available on record, took cognizance.
Having considered the submissions and the materials available on record it appears that the learned S.D.J.M. has considered the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses and only then found prima facie case under Sections 498A, 494 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any illegality in the order impugned. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
BTiwary/U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order finding a prima facie case against the petitioners for dowry harassment and bigamy should be quashed.
Whether there was any illegality in the order dated 11.12.2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunaina Devi
Menka Devi
Tuntun Paswan
Renu Devi
State of Bihar
Kiran Paswan
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
