Partly allowed

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

Patna HC7 Dec 2017CR. MISC./41317/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the cognizance order against them for various offences including dowry harassment. The court quashed proceedings against petitioners except petitioner No. 1, finding allegations against others were sweeping and specific.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceeding against Petitioners No. 2 to 6 in the cognizance order dated 2.8.2013 is set aside; proceedings against Petitioner No. 1 continue.

Dhanraj Singh 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.41317 of 2013

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 2012 Thana -DIGHA District- PATNA

¶3

====================================================== 1. Dhanraj Singh, son of Late Nageena Singh

¶4

Chandrajyoti Prakash, wife of Late Uday Narayan Singh

¶5

Simriya Devi, wife of Dhanraj Singh

¶6

Manti Kumari, daughter of Dhanraj Singh

¶7

Laddu Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar, son of Dhanraj Singh

¶8

Mannu Singh @ Manish Kumar, son of Late Uday Narayan Singh, all residents of Vilalge Kaithi, PS Nokha, O.P.Dharampura, District Rohtas .... .... Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

Archana @ Mansi Raj, wife of Naveen Kumar Singh, resident of Vilalge Kaithi, PS Nokha, O.P.Dharampura, District Rohtas

¶12

.... .... Opposite Party

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh Mr. Indradeo Prasad For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar-I (APP) For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶14

11 07-12-2017 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

The petitioners seek quashing of the cognizance order dated 2.8.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Patna, thereby taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 341, 498A/34 of the IPC and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act and consequently issuing summons to all the accused to stand trial.

¶16

The brief fact giving rise to the case is that the Opposite party No. 2 filed a FIR alleging therein that she was married on 23.5.2005 with Naveen Kumar Singh. Only for one month all the

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41317 of 2013 (11) dt.07-12-2017

¶18

¶19

family members nicely behaved thereafter started making demand of one Alto car and used to torture her in that connection. On 22.1.2012 her husband and cousin father-in-law, Dhanraj Singh brought her to Patna on the pretext of treatment and pressurising her for bringing Alto car and other articles from her parents and also assaulted her.

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is cousin father-in-law, petitioner No. 2 mother-in-law, petitioner No. 3 wife of Dhanraj Singh and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are daughter and son of Dhanraj Singh and petitioner No. 6 is the brother of husband of the informant. It is submitted that the allegations are omnibus and sweeping in nature against all the accused persons.

¶21

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite party No. 2 submits that allegation against Dhanraj Singh, petitioner No. 1, is specific that he assaulted the informant on a particular date as mentioned in the FIR and asked the informant to bring a vehicle and other articles from her parents.

¶22

Having considered the rival submission and on perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegation against the petitioners, except petitioner No. 1, is sweeping in nature, no specific allegation of either making demand or committing any torture mentioning any specific date or manner of torture is mentioned against petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. So, prima facie no offence under Section 498A and other sections, under which cognizance has been taken, is made out against

¶23

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41317 of 2013 (11) dt.07-12-2017

¶24

¶25

petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. Therefore the entire criminal proceeding inclusive of the cognizance order dated 2.8.2013 only against petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 is set aside. However, the criminal proceeding shall continue with respect to Dhanraj Singh petitioner No. 1.

¶26

The application stands disposed of.

¶27

(Arun Kumar, J.)

¶28

Snkumar/-

¶29

U T

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanraj 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

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.

Manzoor Alam Ansari @ Manzoor Alam 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.