Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26354/2014dismissed

Mosmat Juvaida Khatoon And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-06-30Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No 26354 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1010 Year- 2011 Thana -NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE DistrictNAWADA ===========================================================

1. Mosmat Juvaida Khatoon W/o Late Rajjak.

2. Md. Shahabuddin S/o Late Rajjak.

3. Roshan @ Roshan Ara w/o Md Shahabuddin All residents of Village - Charuyawan, P.S. - Shekhopur Sarai, District - Sheikhpura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Esrat Bano D/o Late Shahabuddin R/o Village - Jasat, P.S. - Pakribarma, Dist - Nawada.

.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant case arising out of complaint lodged under Sections 498A, 307, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in which cognizance has been taken by order dated 09.02.2012 under Section 498A of IPC by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawada. 2 Counsel for the petitioners is relying on two judgments of this Court reported in 2017 (1) PLJR 923 in the case of Surendra Prasad @ Sukan -Versus- State of Bihar & Another and 2017 (1) PLJR 954 in the matter of Rakesh Thakur -Versus- State of Bihar & Another.

3 In both the cases, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the proceedings arising out

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26354 of 2014 dt.30-06-2017 2/2 of cases under Section 498A of IPC have been quashed considering the fact that there were general and omnibus allegations made by the prosecution. In the instant case, perusal of Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 disclose specific allegations against all the three petitioners. In the circumstances, the petitioners' case cannot be said to be covered under the said two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the same will have no application to the instant case. 4 In view of the aforesaid, there is no reason to interfere in the order taking cognizance dated 09.02.2012. This application is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04.07.2017 Transmission Date 04.07.2017