Rajendra Prasad Sah and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Rajendra Prasad Sah and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the order dated 5-1-2017 passed by the learned ADJ-1 Jamui in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2016, which had affirmed the order dated 9-5-2016 of the learned SDJM, Jamui rejecting the petitioners' discharge application in Jamui Mahila PS Case No. 1 of 2014.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal case pending against the petitioners arising out of Jamui Mahila PS Case No. 1 of 2014 should be quashed as an abuse of the process of the court, given that the dispute was described as purely matrimonial and the petitioner and OP No. 2 had obtained divorce by mutual consent.

Court's answer

Considering the submission made on behalf of OP No. 2 that she had no grievance if the quashing application were allowed, this court quashed the order dated 5-1-2017 passed by the learned ADJ-1 Jamui in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2016, which affirmed the order dated 9-5-2016 of the learned SDJM, Jamui in Jamui Mahila PS Case No. 1 of 2014 whereby the application seeking discharge of the petitioners was rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15903 of 2017 (Patna High Court; Satyavrat Verma, J; decided 15-01-2024), arising out of Mahila PS Case No. 1 of 2014, District Jamui. Petitioners Rajendra Prasad Sah, Santosh Kumar Sah and Manorma Devi sought quashing of the order dated 5-1-2017 passed by the learned ADJ-1, Jamui in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2016, which had affirmed the order dated 9-5-2016 passed by the learned SDJM, Jamui rejecting their discharge application. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute was purely matrimonial, that the petitioner and OP No. 2 (Sanjana Sah) had obtained divorce by mutual consent through Matrimonial Case No. 31 of 2014 (decree dated 4-9-2014, Family Court, Jamui), and that continuing the criminal case would be an abuse of the process of the court. OP No. 2, through her counsel, concurred and instructed that she had no grievance if the quashing application were allowed. On that consideration, the court quashed the ADJ-1 order dated 5-1-2017 affirming the SDJM order dated 9-5-2016. No statute and no precedent is cited in the judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15903 of 2017

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2014 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jamui

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

Rajendra Prasad Sah, son of Late Jamuna Sah

Santosh Kumar Sah, son of Rajendra Prasad Sah

Manorma Devi, W/o Rajendra Prasad Sah

All residents of village-Chakai, Post office and Police Station-Chakai, District-Jamui.

Versus

1. State Of Bihar

Sanjana Sah, D/o Mahadeo sah, resident of village -Chakai, Post office and police station-Chakai, District-Jamui.

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brajesh Sahay For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay Mr. Prakash Mahto, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 15-01-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

APP, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay along with learned counsel for the OP No. 2, Mr. Prakash Mahto.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the dispute is purely matrimonial. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner herein had filed Matrimonial Case No. 31 of 2014 seeking divorce by mutual consent and the same was allowed by judgment dated 4-9-2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui.

3. It is next submitted that since the petitioner and the OP No. 2 obtained divorce by mutual consent as such keeping

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15903 of 2017(3) dt.15-01-2024 2/2

the criminal case pending will be an abuse of the process of the court.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of OP No. 2 concurs with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that he has instructions from OP No. 2 to assert and submit that OP No. 2 shall have no grievance in the event if the present quashing application is allowed, and the order dated 5-1-2017 passed by the learned ADJ-1, Jamui in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2016, affirming the order dated 9- 5-2016 passed by the learned SDJM Jamui in Jamui Mahila PS Case No. 1 of 2014, whereby application seeking discharge on behalf of the petitioners was rejected, is quashed.

5. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of the OP No. 2, the order dated 5-1-2017 passed by the learned ADJ-1 Jamui in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2016 affirming the order dated 9-5-2016 passed by the learned SDJM, Jamui in Jamui Mahila PS Case No. 1 of 2014, whereby application seeking discharge of the petitioners was rejected, is hereby quashed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

SUMIT/-

U T