Yamuna Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38573 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -902 Year- 2012 Thana -BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBUXAR =========================================================== Yamuna Singh, Son of Mahendra Singh, Resident Of Vill- Punwas, Police StationDistrict - Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Ritu Devi, Wife of Yamuna Signh, Daughter of Indradeo Singh Present Residing At Mukundera (Parasi), Police Station- Itarhi, District - Buxar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This quashing petition is directed against the order dated 18.04.2013 passed against the petitioner by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in complaint case No. 902 of 2012 whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage was solemnized eight years back, the husband is always ready to keep his wife and she too was ready to live together accordingly compromise petition was drafted, but the father-in-law of the petitioner put a condition that unless some lands are transferred in the name of his daughter, there would not be any compromise, due to this

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38573 of 2013 dt.23-06-2017 2/2 reason, compromise failed. However, the allegations levelled in the complaint did not constitute any offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 submits that the allegation do constitute offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also during enquiry, witnesses have supported it.

5. Having considered the submissions of both the sides and on perusal of record, I find that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of torturing and harassing the complainant for coercing her to bring more dowry from her parents and failure to reach compromise for any reason cannot be a ground to interfere in the cognizance order. So there is no ground for interfering with the cognizance order at this pre-trial stage. This quashing petition stands dismissed.

(Arun Kumar, J) Sujit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 13.07.2017 Transmission Date 13.07.2017