Dismissed

Indra Bhusan Singh @ Sudhir Kr. Singh and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC11 Aug 2017CR. MISC./33300/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court considered an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order allowing a private complainant to adduce evidence in a 498A trial after a compromise was allegedly violated. The court found no illegality and dismiss the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the order dated 11.04.2014 is dismissed without costs.

Indra Bhusan Singh @ Sudhir Kr. Singh and Ors. Vs State Of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33300 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33300 of 2014

¶4

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -328 Year- 2010 Thana -BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District-

¶5

BHAGALPUR

¶6

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

¶7

Indra Bhusan Singh @ Sudhir Kr. Singh, son of Anti Singh.

¶8

Neelam Singh, wife of Indra Bhusan Singh.

¶9

Pranav Singh, son of Sudhir Kr. Singh, All resident of Mohalla - Tilak Manjhi near Shela Bhawan , Police Station -Tilak Manjhi, District - Bhagalpur.

¶10

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Bihar.

¶13

Rachna Asis, Daughter of Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh , resident of Khirnighat (Raja Bari ) Bari Khanjarpur in the house of Sri Rama Nand Prasad Singh , Police Station - Barari , District - Bhagalpur.

¶14

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

¶15

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate. For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pradeep Narayan Kumar APP

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

Date: 11-08-2017

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶20

learned counsel for the State.

¶21

2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 11.04.2014 passed in G.R. Case No. 1349 of 2010, whereby the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, allowed the application of the informant-opposite party no. 2 for adducing the evidence.

¶22

3. The facts leading to this application is that informant-opposite party no. 2 lodged the Kotwali (Brari) P.S. Case

¶23

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33300 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017

¶24

No. 328 of 2010, on 20.05.2010, for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband Pranav Kumar Singh, father-in-law Sudhir Singh, mother-in-law Neelam Singh and brother-in-law Vani Singh. On investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against only accusedpetitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after framing the charge the trial started against the accused-petitioners.

¶25

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in course of trial, informant-opposite party no. 2 filed an application to close the evidence due to compromise entered in between the informant-opposite party no. 2 and accused-petitioners and accordingly the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, closed the evidence of the prosecution and recorded the statement of the accused-petitioners, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. But thereafter informant-opposite party no. 2 filed an application to permit her to adduce the evidence as terms of the compromise has been disobeyed by the accused-petitioners with submission that since the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., as such, closing of the evidence on the basis of compromise petition filed earlier is not maintainable. After hearing the informant-opposite party no. 2 and the

¶26

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33300 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017

¶27

accused-petitioners, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, allowed the application of the informant-opposite party no. 2 filed on 16.12.2013 illegally and fixed the date on 13.06.2014 for evidence.

¶28

5. On going through the impugned order, I find no illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of the court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application is dismissed . However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise his defence as raised herein in trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶29

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

¶30

Bhardwaj/-

¶31

AFR/NAFR
CAVDATE
UploadingDate	17.08.2017
Transmission Date	17.08.2017

Indra Bhusan Singh @ Sudhir Kr. Singh and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Bhusan Singh @ Sudhir Kr. Singh 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

Ashok Singh @ Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Jai Prakash Pathak and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Quiyum @ Chhotakiya @ Quyamuddin Miya Vs The State Of Bihar

Dhanilal Sah Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Lalita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Mukesh Rajbanshi Vs The State Of Bihar