Partly allowed

Manzoor Alam Ansari @ Manzoor Alam and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC7 Dec 2017CR. MISC./39698/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of cognizance, the Patna High Court partially quashed the impugned order and subsequent proceedings against specific petitioners due to lack of specific allegations, while allowing proceedings to continue against others.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings against petitioners No.2 and No.3; proceedings continue against petitioners No.1, 4, and 5.

Manzoor Alam Ansari @ Manzoor Alam and Ors. Vs State Of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39698 of 2014

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -110 Year- 2014 Thana -EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI)

¶4

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

¶5

Manzoor Alam Ansari @ Manzoor Alam Son of As Mohamad Ansari

¶6

As Mohamad Ansari son of Late Toubig Ansari

¶7

Noor Alam Ansari Son of As Mohamad Ansari

¶8

Sabnam Khatoon Daughter of As Mohamad Ansari

¶9

Kusum Nesha @ Kulsoom Begum Wife of As Mohamad Ansari All are Resident of Village -Chhot Bariyarpur, Kuriy Tola, Near Naya Pani Tanki, Sugar Mill Road, P.S.- Chhatouni, District - East Champaran at Motihari

¶10

.... .... Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Bihar

¶13

Naheeda Praveen Wife of Manjoor Alam Ansari and Daughter of Rahim Ansari Resident of Hanuman Gadhi, gauri Shankar School Road, Salam Nagar, P.SMotihari Town, District - East Champaran at Motihari

¶14

.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate ===========================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-12-2017

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for

¶17

the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite

¶18

party no.2.

¶19

The petitioners seek quashing of cognizance order dated 07.05.2014, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Motihari in Complaint Case No.110 of 2014 thereby taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶20

A brief fact giving rise to the case is that on 21.04.2011 complainant was married with Md. Manzoor Alam, petitioner no.1.

¶21

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39698 of 2014 dt.07-12-2017

¶22

2 /3

¶23

The complainant’s husband after marriage started making further demand of Rs.1,00,000/- cash, motorcycle and freeze at the instigation of his father As Mohammad Ansari, many times the complainant was sent back to her parents’ home. It is also alleged that in the matrimonial home the mother-in-law and Nanad used to throw hot water over the body of the complainant.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no specific allegation is levelled against the accused persons, so prima facie under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other offences are not made out against the accused persons.

¶25

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the records, there appears specific allegation against the husband, Manzoor Alam Ansari @ Manzoor Alam, petitioner no.1 as well as against petitioners no.4 and 5 Nanad and mother-in-law with regard to making demand of dowry and committing torture and it is alleged against petitioners no.4 and 5 that they used to throw hot water over the body of the complainant. However, the allegation is not specific against the father-in-law, As Mohammad Ansari, and brother of the husband, Noor Alam Ansari, petitioners no.2 and 3 except the bald allegation hence, criminal proceeding inclusive of the order of cognizance dated 07.05.2014, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Motihari in Complaint Case No.110 of 2014 and subsequent criminal

¶26

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39698 of 2014 dt.07-12-2017

¶27

3 /3

¶28

proceeding with respect to petitioners no.2 and 3 is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the criminal proceeding will proceed further against Manzoor Alam Ansari @ Manzoor Alam, Sabnam Khatoon and Kusum Nesha @ Kulsoom Begum, petitioners no.1, 4 and 5 respectively in accordance with law.

¶29

Accordingly, the quashing application stands disposed

of.

(Arun Kumar, J.)

S.Kumar/-

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
UploadingDate	20.12.2017
Transmission Date	20.12.2017

Manzoor Alam Ansari @ Manzoor Alam and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manzoor Alam Ansari @ Manzoor Alam 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

Kundan Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Chano Devi Vs The State Of Bihar Through S.p. Begusarai and Anr.

Bidhu Kumar and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

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.