Allowed

Girish Kumar Rai and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC5 Jan 2018CR. MISC./11927/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside the entire criminal proceeding and quashment of the cognizance order against two petitioners (father-in-law and mother-in-law) for lack of specific allegations reflecting substantive ingredients of Sections 498A IPC and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 21.7.2011 and entire criminal proceedings with respect to the two petitioners set aside.

Girish Kumar Rai and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11927 of 2015

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -675 Year- 2011 Thana -BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CSAE DistrictBEGUSARAI

¶3

====================================================== 1. Girish Kumar Rai Son of Late Ram Kishan Rai Resident of Village - Gaura, P.S. - Teghra, Distt. - Begusarai.

¶4

Heera Devi Wife of Late Pasupati Rai Resident of Village - Gaura, P.S. - Teghra, Distt. - Begusarai.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Nutan Kumari D/o Ram Charitar Kunwar Resident of Village - Tazpur, P.S. - Teghra, Distt. - Begusarai.

¶9

.... .... Opposite Party

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam For the State : Mr. Gajendra Prasad Yadav (App) For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh

¶11

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

¶12

4 05-01-2018

¶13

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite party No. 2.

¶14

The petitioners seek quashing of the cognizance order dated 21.7.2011 passed by learned SDJM Begusarai in connection with Complaint Case No. 675 (C) of 2011, thereby taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶15

The brief fact giving rise to the case is that on 27.2.2009 the complainant was married with Pritam Kumar, son of petitioner No. 1, but after marriage all accused persons started torturing her in order to

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11927 of 2015 (4) dt.05-01-2018

¶17

¶18

realise Two Lakh rupees in cash and motorcycle as further dowry and on 18.3.2011 on the pretext to attend natural call she escaped away from the matrimonial home as accused persons were conspiring to set fire on her body.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners, who are father-inlaw and cousin mother-in-law of the complainant, are only general and omnibus, only their names are given in the complaint making general allegation of demand of dowry. The specific allegation is only against the husband who runs a mobile shop and to the Court’s query in her statement she has also stated that her husband does not like her.

¶20

Contrary to that, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite party No. 2 submits that the allegation is specific against these two petitioners also in the complaint and in the statement of two enquiry witnesses. The husband has again married with another girl.

¶21

Having considered the rival submission and on perusal of the record the court finds that only bald statement sweeping in nature has been leveled against these petitioners either in the complaint or the statement of the enquiry witnesses except casual reference of their names no specific overt act leading to torture and harassment is mentioned in the complaint. The specific allegation is against the husband. So prima facie ingredients of Section 498A and 323 IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance against these two petitioners without

¶22

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11927 of 2015 (4) dt.05-01-2018

¶23

¶24

sufficient material and has summoned them also, so entire criminal proceeding inclusive the cognizance order dated 21.7.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 675 (C) of 2011 with respect to these two petitioners only is set aside.

¶25

In the result the application stands allowed.

¶26

(Arun Kumar, J.)

¶27

Snkumar/-

¶28

U T

Girish Kumar Rai and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Kumar Rai 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

Bachcha Sharma and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Vinay Kumar Keshri @ Vinay Keshri Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Tripurari Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Arun Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Isharat Praveen @ Isharat Khatoon @ Ifflat and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Pankaj Anand Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.