Petitioner sought quashing of a Magistrate's order taking cognizance against him in his wife's dowry complaint. The High Court found direct allegations against the petitioner supported by witnesses' statements and held that a prima facie case was made out.
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.52840 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-221 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya
======================================================
RAJ KUMAR @ RAJ KUMAR SAW Son of Rajendra Prasad Sao RESIDENT OF VILL BASPIPARA, POST BASPIPARA, PS FATEHPUR, DISTRICT GAYA, BIHAR
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dayanand Singh, Advocate For the State : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP For the O.P.no.2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY C.A.V. ORDER
6 05-07-2024
APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52840 of 2023(6) dt.05-07-2024 2/5
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya, is that the opposite party no.2 was married to the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs on 23.4.2021. The father of the opposite party no.2 gave an amount of Rs.6 lacs in cash, gold and silver ornaments besides other articles as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant states that the accused persons kept her well for sometime but soon thereafter they started to abuse, assault and cast aspersion on the members of her family. She was threatened that in case a four-wheeled car was not given, they would marry her husband once again. She was assaulted and beaten up on 10.4.2022 and the accused persons abusing her, forced her out of her sasural. As a result of the assault, the opposite party no.2 who was in the family way aborted. As the police officials refused to register the F.I.R., as such, the complaint was filed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52840 of 2023(6) dt.05-07-2024 3/5
the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the accused persons including the petitioner herein. It is against this order dated 23.7.2022 that the instant application has been preferred.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52840 of 2023(6) dt.05-07-2024 4/5
State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that not only the petitioner happens to be the husband of the opposite party no.2, he is named in the complaint and there is direct allegation against him. The allegations levelled in the complaint have been fully supported by the witnesses whose statements have been recorded in course of enquiry. The witnesses also include an independent witness. It is submitted that the learned Court below has rightly taken cognizance in the case. There is no merit in the instant application and the same be dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52840 of 2023(6) dt.05-07-2024 5/5
made out against the petitioner and the learned trial Court rightly took cognizance in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has neither pointed out any illegality in the order impugned nor has made out any case for interference by this Court.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cognizance order dated 23.7.2022 under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 34 IPC and section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed as based on general and omnibus allegations.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Saw
State of Bihar
Suman Kumari @ Shivani Kumari
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
