The Patna High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an order taking cognizance in a 498-A case, finding no illegality as the cause of action differed from a prior complaint.
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.1113 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -37 Year- 2009 Thana -BETTIAH TOWN DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. APP
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-09-2018
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Bettiah Town P.S. Case No.37 of 2009 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the Petitioners for the offence under Section(s) 498-A, 494, 323, 504 Indian Penal Code.
Counsel for the Petitioner submits that another complaint vide Complaint Case No.2169-C of 2009 has been filed by the Informant and in that case Petitioner was summoned to face trial
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1113 of 2016 dt.07-09-2018
2/2
for the offence under Section(s) 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The instant case has been filed on 15.02.2009, whereas, the Complaint Case was filed on 14.09.2009 for the occurrence of 20.03.2009.
In this manner, from the First Information Report of instant case and the Complaint Case, it appears that cause of action in both the cases are different.
The police in the instant case has submitted chargesheet against the petitioner. Petitioner is husband of the Informant.
Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed .
The Court below will proceed with the case in
accordance with law.
(Sanjay Priya, J)
J.Alam/-
| AFR/NAFR | AFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| UploadingDate | 15-09-2018 |
| Transmission Date |
15-09-2018 |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against the Petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Mallik @ Guddu Mallik
State of Bihar
Meena Devi
Sanjay Priya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
