Petitioners challenged an FIR under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner No.1 withdrew; others faced allegations without detailed accusations. The Court relied on Kahkashan Kausar and quashed proceedings against petitioners Nos. 2 to 11.
Petition dismissed for Petitioner No.1; proceedings against Petitioners Nos. 2 to 11 quashed.
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.7393 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-715 Year-2019 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
... ... Petitioners
Versus
... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7393 of 2022(2) dt.19-05-2022 2/3
2 19-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.
The present application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report vide Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 715 of 2019 (G.R. No.7338 of 2019) registered for the offences under Sections 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, the Court below taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw this petition on behalf of petitioner no.1, above named, with a liberty to raise all the issues at the time of frame of charge.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdraw as against petitioner no.1, above named, with the above liberty.
The petitioner nos. 2 to 11 are the married sisters-inlaw, their husbands and maternal father-in-law of opposite party no.2. There are general and omnibus allegations against them as the details of allegations are missing in the F.I.R.
Considering the aforesaid facts as also considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 ,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7393 of 2022(2) dt.19-05-2022 3/3
this petition is allowed on behalf of petitioner nos. 2 to 11.
Accordingly, the entire prosecution launched against the petitioner nos. 2 to 11, above named, in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 517 of 2019 (G.R. No. 7338 of 2019) are hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/- U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act is maintainable given missing details of allegations.
Whether prosecution against specific petitioners should be quashed in light of Supreme Court precedents on identical facts.
What is the appropriate order when some petitioners withdraw but the F.I.R. lacks essential details against others.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of BiharRelied on¶27
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Asha Devi
Ranjana Devi
Bholi Singh
Bandana Singh
Murari Singh
Nikhil Singh
Sandeep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
