Petitioners challenged the CJM's order taking cognizance and issuing process in a dowry-related case. The High Court declined to interfere, noting the need for prima facie case satisfaction at that stage, and disposed of the application with liberty to raise contentions later.
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.48208 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -288 Year- 2013 Thana -BODHGAYA District- GAYA
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Pandey (App)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
02/ 09-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 288 of 2013 whereby process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48208 of 2015 (2) dt.09-05-2017
2/3
Prohibition Act.
The prosecution case is that the informant Badri Prasad Burnwal submitted a written report before the Officer-in-charge of Bodh Gaya Police Station to the effect that he negotiated the marriage of his daughter with petitioner no. 2, Dinesh Kumar and the marriage was fixed. During engagement the informant paid Rs.11001/- along with jewellary and clothes and thereafter demand of rupees fifteen lakhs and car were made by the petitioners leading to registration of Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 288 of 2013 under Sections 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
On conclusion of the investigation final form (charge sheet) was submitted under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and consequently the learned CJM vide order dated 15.01.2015 after perusing the records came to the conclusion that prima facie case under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners hence passed order of cognizance. The said order is impugned in the present proceeding.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 2 was bride groom whereas
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48208 of 2015 (2) dt.09-05-2017
3/3
petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 are the brothers of petitioner no. 2. The marriage was negotiated but after engagement the informant himself decided not to marry and got his daughter married with someone else. Petitioner no. 2 is still unmarried. Hence, maliciously the present case has been lodged.
In view of this Court at the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has to see, prima facie, case. At this stage the Magistrate has advantage of going through the materials collected during investigation brought before the Magistrate by way of police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the contentions at the appropriate stage of proceeding.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
DKS/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the single order quashable serves as a prima facie case for issuance of process under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Magistrate's decision to take cognizance after completion of investigation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar
Dinesh Kumar
Dabloo Kumar
Mahesh Kumar
The State of Bihar
Badri Prasad Varnwal
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
