Dismissed

Nagendra Kumar @ Babloo v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC23 Aug 2017CR. MISC./30828/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a magistrate's order taking cognizance in a dowry and forgery case. The bench held that factual defences and affidavits could not be examined under Section 482 CrPC at this stage and the matter should be raised before the lower court. No substantive causation issues were decided by this judgment, which was an oral order d

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with observations that factual defences are not examinable in this court under Section 482 CrPC.

Nagendra Kumar @ Babloo Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30828 of 2014 (5) dt.23-08-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30828 of 2014

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -120 Year- 2011 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA

¶4

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

¶5

Nagendra Kumar @ Babloo S/o Sri Rajendra Prasad R/v- Erki, P.S.Belaganj, Distt.- Gaya At present constable no.- 13993074, Swasth Sangathan Chandi Mandir 134107, Panchkula, Hariyana

¶6

.... .... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Shashi Prabha W/o Nagendra Kumar @ Babloo, D/o Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad R/v- Erki, P.S.- Belaganj, Distt.- Gaya. At Present R/vSripur, P.S.- Belaganj, Distt.- Gaya .... .... Opposite Parties

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh(APP)

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 23-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 7.12.2011

¶15

passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Complaint case no. 120(C) of 2011, by which he has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 498A, 465 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶16

Petitioner is husband of the complainant/opposite party no.2. Submission made on his behalf is that the instant case has been filed seven years after the marriage when the complainant learnt that her name has not been incorporated in the Service

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30828 of 2014 (5) dt.23-08-2017

¶18

Book of the petitioner as his wife. Other submission of the petitioner is that his marriage was never consummated with the complainant and she had left the matrimonial home just a week after the marriage in the year 2003. He also submits that the ingredients of Sections 465 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted against him as per the allegations made in the complaint, therefore, order taking cognizance is bad in law.

¶19

I have gone through the complaint. From perusal of paragraphs 4, 5 as well as other paragraphs of the complaint, prima facie, allegations, as regards the solemnization of marriage in the year 2003 and subsequently subjecting her to torture for the demand of dowry, are made out. Other allegation, disclosed in the complaint, is that the petitioner did not get entered complainant’s name in his service book as his wife, though she was his legally wedded wife.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the affidavit of the complainant contained in Annexure 2 series to submit that from perusal of the same it is apparent that the complainant has admitted to being living separately from the petitioner/husband.

¶21

In the said affidavit, she has stated that her husband has deserted her and separated for demand of dowry and also

¶22

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30828 of 2014 (5) dt.23-08-2017

¶23

having illicit relation with other lady. She has further stated that her father is maintaining her at his house by taking loan.

¶24

Since, the defence of the petitioner and factual contentions including the affidavit (Annexure 2 series) cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not the appropriate stage to appreciate the points raised by the petitioner. However, it will be open for the petitioner to raise the points at the appropriate stage before the court below, which may be considered by it in accordance with law without being prejudice by this order.

¶25

The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

¶26

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶27

Shashi.

¶28

U T

Nagendra Kumar @ Babloo v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Kumar @ Babloo 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

Sushil Kumar Singh @ Sushil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Kunal Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Santosh Sahani Vs The State Of Bihar

Dastgir @ Sagir and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Suryadeo Chauhan and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Asha Devi and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.