Quashed

Krishna Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC2 Sept 2019CR. MISC./8815/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner and others under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 504, and 34 IPC. The court held the proceedings were an abuse of process due to the prior family separation and family arrangement resolving property disputes, rendering the allegations of extortion and assault inconclusive.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of cognizance dated 21.09.2013 and the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom are quashed, and the petition is allowed.

Krishna Chaudhary Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8815 of 2015

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2013 Thana- AIRPORT District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Krishna Chaudhary Son of Late Jhalli Chaudhary, Resident of MohallaKhajpura, P.S.- Hawai Adda, District- Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Bihar

¶8

Robina Khatoon D/o Rahmtulla Ansari @ Rahmtulla Khan. R/o VillageJadhua Pokhra, P.S.- Town Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

¶9

Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary @ Shahabuddin Ansari @ Md. Shahil Ansari S/o Krishna Chowdhary @ Md. Abbas. R/o Village- Jadhua Pokhra, P.S.- Town Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh No.1, Advocate ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-09-2019

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

2. The petitioner is father-in-law of opposite party No.2, Robina Khatoon . Opposite Party No.3, Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary is son of this petitioner and husband of Robina Khatoon .

¶15

3. According to First Information Report, Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary had entered into marriage with mutual consent with Robina Khatoon on 18.03.2013. The family members of Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary did not approve the marriage. The husband of the informant had come to the house of

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8815 of 2015 dt.02-09-2019 2/4

¶17

his parents and he had switched off his mobile phone. Hence, the informant came to the house of the petitioner, where the petitioner and other family members allegedly abused her and committed assault against her as well.

¶18

4. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 21.09.2013 passed in G.R. No.4276 of 2016, arising out of Hawai Adda Police Station Case No.119 of 2013, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 498 (A), 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation of illegal demand and torture for the same. Hence, cognizance under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and suffers from non-application of judicial mind on the material on the record.

¶20

His next contention is that after the marriage between the two, a family arrangement was made on 01.06.2013, whereunder the husband of the informant agreed to receive Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) in lieu of his share in small piece of land which could not have been partitioned and the husband of the informant received the said Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) and the informant also signed on the said family arrangement paper on 01.06.2013. After that there was no

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8815 of 2015 dt.02-09-2019 3/4

¶22

occasion for the husband of the informant or for the informant to come to the residential house of the petitioner. Hence, allegation of wrongful restrain is not made out and other allegation of commission of assault etc. are concoction, just to pressurize for more money. The husband of the informant is not an accused in this case.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer and submits that prima facie case is already disclosed in the First Information Report and the material collected by the Police. Therefore, in exercise of extra ordinary power, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order.

¶24

7. The factum of family arrangement and separation between the husband of the informant and other family members are not in dispute. The family had only two residential plots. There was a house on 503 sqft of land, vide holding No.887 A near Hawai Adda at Patna. Another plot was in village- Sadikpur measuring six and a half decimal. The brother and parents of the husband of the informant were also co-sharer. The contents of family arrangement at Annexure 3 would reveal that due to dispute arising out of nature of the food used by the informant and others, the parties decided to separate and with consent the immovable property was left with the petitioner as well as the

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8815 of 2015 dt.02-09-2019 4/4

¶26

wife of the petitioner and husband of the informant received Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) in lieu of his share as per the market price of the land and the house on the prevailing date. Apparently, the jointness of the family had already disrupted prior to the alleged occurrence dated 16.07.2013, when the informant had gone to the house of the petitioner to search about her husband and the petitioner committed abuse and assault.

¶27

8. Normally, this Court would not have interfered with the order of cognizance when prima facie case is made out. However, in the background of the allegation narrated above, this is a case of abuse of process of the Court, which cannot be allowed to go on. Hence, the impugned order and entire criminal proceeding arising out of impugned order is, hereby, quashed and this application stands allowed .

¶28

(Birendra Kumar, J)

¶29

abhishek/-

¶30

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	05.09.2019
Transmission Date	05.09.2019.

Krishna Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Chaudhary 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

Arun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Saurav Kumar @ Saurabh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jaipal Marandi and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kamlesh Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Sumitra Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.