Dismissed

Shambhu Sah v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC26 Feb 2018CR. MISC./43138/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna quashing application filed by a husband to challenge his summons for trial in a dowry harassment case. The court dismissed the plea, holding that the offence whereby the wife was not allowed to leave her matrimonial home constituted cruel treatment, establishing the Chief Judicial Magistrate's jurisdiction. The application was dismissed on 26-02-2018.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of the order summoning the petitioner is dismissed.

Shambhu Sah Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43138 of 2017

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2703 Year- 2015 Thana -EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- EASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI)

¶4

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

¶5

Shambhu Sah son of Ramakant Sah, resident of Mohalla-New Jakkanpur, Shiv Mandir, Goriya Math, P.S.-Jakkanpur, District- Patna

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶7

State of Bihar

¶8

Khushboo @ Khushboo Kumari Gupta wife of Shambhu Sao, daughter of Jai Rudra Prasad Gupta, permanent resident of Barwa Lakhaura, District- East Champaran at present posted as Assistant Manager, HR, NIIT Foundation, New Delhi.

¶9

.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

¶10

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-02-2018

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

¶12

the State and learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no.2.

¶13

2. In the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, West Champaran, by which he has summoned the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for

¶14

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43138 of 2017 dt.26-02-2018

¶15

2/3

¶16

short ‘the D.P.Act’).

¶17

3. The sole ground for quashing of the impugned order dated 03.03.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.2703 of 2015 summoning the petitioner and others to face trial is that as no part of cause of occurrence had allegedly taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, West Champaran, he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.

¶18

4. I have perused the record.

¶19

5. It would be apparent from the statement of the witness Jai Rudra Prasad Gupta, father of the complainant recorded in course of enquiry that the marriage of his daughter with the petitioner had taken place on 22^nd April, 2015 and her ‘Bidai’ took place on 23^rd April, 2015. At the time of ‘Bidai’ the petitioner Shambhu Sah and his father told that if rupees one lac and a Hyundai car is not given, the girl will not be allowed to live in peace. The above statement of Jai Rudra Prasad Gupta clearly makes out an offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P.Act. It would further be evident that there are allegations that the victim was thereafter subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home. As part of the occurrence of the offence had taken place at Motihari, it cannot be said that simply because the victim was not subjected to cruelty at Motihari within the meaning of definition under Section 498A of the I.P.C. the prosecution of the petitioner at

¶20

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43138 of 2017 dt.26-02-2018

¶21

3/3

¶22

Motihari would be bad in law.

¶23

6. In that view of the matter, I see no merit in this

¶24

application. It is dismissed, accordingly.

¶25

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

¶26

Md.S./-

¶27

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A.
UploadingDate	28.02.2018
Transmission Date	28.02.2018

Shambhu Sah v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Sah 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

Ajay Sharma Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ramkumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Bisheswar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Naresh Prasad Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Parmanand Choudhary Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Bhokal @ Hasin Vs The State Of Bihar