Allowed

Baleshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwar Mahto and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC4 Dec 2017CR. MISC./52059/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed the cognizance order dated 28.01.2014 in a criminal case involving dowry harassment. The court found that the allegations of torture and dowry demand were not specific against the petitioners, who are the complainant's parents, but rather against the husband. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed only with respect to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the cognizance order dated 28.01.2014 in the complaint case only with respect to the petitioners, Baleshwar Mahto and Shila Devi.

Baleshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwar Mahto and Anr. Vs State Of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52059 of 2014

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1037 Year- 2013 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

¶4

PATNA

¶5

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

¶6

Baleshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwar Mahto S/O Hiralal Mahto

¶7

Shila Devi, W/o Sri Baleshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwar Mahto both resident of Bahari Dhawalpura, P.S.- Bypass, District- Patna

¶8

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

Manju Devi W/O Chandra Shekhar Prasad @ Chandu Mahto, D/O Netilal, resident of Gayghat Kali Mandir, P.S. Alamganj, District- Patna

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, Advocatge For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Mushtaqe Alam(App)

¶15

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶16

4 04-12-2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the

¶17

cognizance order dated 28.01.2014, passed in Complaint Case No. 1037 C/2013 by the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, thereby cognizance under Sections 498 (A), 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The brief fact giving rise to the case of/Complainant is that she was married with Chandra Shekhar in the year, 1994. In the year, 1995 her husband again married with another lady namely, Sunita Devi. Prior to that, already three daughters and one son were born out of their wedlock. It is also alleged that on 21.08.2013 all the accused persons ransacked the room of the

¶19

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52059 of 2014 (4) dt.04-12-2017

¶20

2/3

¶21

complainant, causing damage of Rs. 20,000/- and Sunita Devi took away briefcase containing five thousand rupees and one golden chain. It is also alleged that all the accused persons used to assault and torture her for realizing one lakh from her parents.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are old parents of the husband. The allegation of dowry demand and torture is not specific against them, moreover the allegation is made after a lapse of nineteen years of marriage. The complainant is aggrieved with conduct of her husband as alleged be warmed with another lady. Therefore, she lodged a Complain case against the husband but implicated all family members.

¶23

Contrary to that, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is specific allegation of making demand for dowry and committing torture to the complainant by the petitioners.

¶24

Having considered rival submissions, the Court finds that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and the marriage of the complainant was solemnized twenty years back and four issues were borne out of their wedlock. The allegation of making demand of dowry is not specific against the petitioners rather the allegation is specific

¶25

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52059 of 2014 (4) dt.04-12-2017

¶26

3/3

¶27

against the husband, who is not the petitioner in this case, so prima-facie no offence is disclosed against petitioners.

¶28

Hence, the entire criminal proceeding inclusive

¶29

of cognizance order dated 28.01.2014, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Patna City is hereby quashed only with respect to the two petitioners namely, Baleshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwari Mahto and Shila Devi.

¶30

The application stands allowed.

¶31

(Arun Kumar, J)

¶32

Sudha/-

¶33

U T

Baleshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwar Mahto and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baleshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwar Mahto and Anr. 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

Ritu Abhishek and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Tabassum Khatoon and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

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

Chandrawati Devi Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Harishankar Kunwar and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Shiv Shakti Kumar @ Paran Paswan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.