← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./12484/2015dismissed

Hari Shankar Yadav @ Hari Shankar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2019-07-02Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12484 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2013 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Hari Shankar Yadav @ Hari Shankar Singh Son of Surendra Yadav, Resident of Village - Bela, Maghouli, P.S. - Bihiya, District - Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar 2.

Shanti Devi, Daughter of Sakun Yadav, Wife of Hari Shankar Yadav, P.O. Mahuli Ghat, P.S. Krishna Gradh, District - Bhojpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner is husband of Shanti Devi and the complainant-Satyendra Yadav is brother of Shanti Devi. Allegation against the petitioner and other inlaws is of demand of dowry and torture for the same. Specific allegation is that the petitioner has solemnized marriage with one Urmila Devi daughter of Rajgrih Yadav of Village-Bhujahi, P.S.-Barhara, District-Bhojpur in June 2013. The complaint was registered as Ara Mahila P.S.Case No.85 of 2013 and after investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under Section 498(A)/494/34 I.P.C. against the petitioner and others. Accordingly, cognizance has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12484 of 2015 dt.02-07-2019 2/2 taken by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 17.06.2014.

3. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that allegation is general and omnibus, in fact, the petitioner has not solemnized marriage with anyone save and except Shanti Devi.

4. Apparently, there is sufficient material on the record disclosing commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner. Hence, impugned order requires no interference. The defence of the petitioner would be examined during course of the trial.

5. In the circumstance, this application is dismissed as devoid of any merit.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.07.2019 Transmission Date 06.07.2019