Sarita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

2023 passed by the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in GR No 919/2017/Trail No 3334/2023 arising out of Mahila PS case No 40/2017, by which discharge petition u/s 239 of Cr PC dated 05-12-2022 has been dismissed.

¶18

Prosecution case in brief is that after death of husband of the informant, the accused persons including these petitioners told her that she would be married with Devor Pankaj kumar if she would pay one lakh rupees for getting Government job to said Pankaj Kumar. On that assurance, informant gave the said amount to the accused persons.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26067 of 2023(5) dt.23-04-2024 2/5

¶20

Thereafter, Pankaj kumar started establishing physical relation with the informant on the assurance of marriage with informant. When the informant said to marry with Pankaj kumar, then family members demanded a motorcycle. When the informant refused to fulfill demand, then Pankaj kumar refused to marry with the Informant. On the basis of alleged allegation Mahila P S case No 40/17 registered dated 08-03-17 u/s 498(A),376,323,504,506/34 of IP C and u/s N of DP Act against petitioners and other family members.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is bhabhi and petitioner no. 2 is elder brother of alleged husband of the informant. Petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence. There is general and omnibus allegation against these petitioners and no overt act has been alleged against them. They have been made accused only on the ground that they are family members of informant. In fact, petitioners are residing separately for about last 5 years and they have no concern with family affairs between informant and Pankaj Kumar. Police after investigation submitted final form against the petitioners but the Court below differing with the same took cognizance of the offence. As a matter of fact, father of petitioner No 2 was working as chaukidar and younger

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26067 of 2023(5) dt.23-04-2024 3/5

¶23

brother Pankaj kumar got Government job as chaukidar when his father was unable to perform his duty. When brother of petitioner No 2 got Government job as chaukidar, the informant started making pressure to marry with Pankaj kumar. However, Pankaj Kumar refused to marry with informant, then she filed Complaint Case No 343 C/19 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalanda at Bihar Sharif on 03-04-19 u/s 376,307,448,323,504,506/34 of IPC against petitioners and other family members. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court passed in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 .

¶24

State counsel opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned order is well discussed and a reasoned order, as such, no interference is required with the said order.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, though nobody appears for opposite party no.2 inspite of valid service of notice on her.

¶26

From perusal of the impinged order dated 27.2.2023, it appears that while dismissing petitioner’s

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26067 of 2023(5) dt.23-04-2024 4/5

¶28

discharge petition dated 5.12.2022, court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that prima facie no case is made out against these petitioners. They have been made accused merely because they happen to be relatives of co-accused Pankaj Kumar against whom there is specific allegation that on false assurance of marriage, he established physical relation with the informant. In absence of specific allegation and only because these petitioners happen to be relatives of that coaccused Pankaj Kumar, continuance of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of the court. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances, and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Preeti

¶29

Gupta (supra) and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , and in absence of any specific role attributed to these petitioners, it would be unjust if the petitioners are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial.

¶30

In view of the foregoing discussions, order dated 27-02-2023 passed by the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in GR No 919/2017/Trail No 3334/2023, is hereby quashed with respect to these petitioners.

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26067 of 2023(5) dt.23-04-2024 5/5

¶32

Accordingly, the present quashing application is

¶33

allowed.

¶34

Shashi

¶35

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶36

U T

Sarita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laddu Mahto @ Mukesh Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Shiv Lal Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Brij Kishor Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Gautam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar, through the Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

Lala Rai Vs The State of Bihar