Rajendra Thakur v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4315 of 2015 Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-275 Year-2006 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rajendra Thakur, Son of Late Jai Lal Thakur, Resident of Village - Amaithi, P.S. - Bahera, District - Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ranju Devi W/o Rajendra Thakur, D/o Udneshwar Thakur Resident of Village - Amethi, P.S. - Bahera, District - Darbhanga. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Shashi Shekhar Kishore, Mr. Shiv Pujan Sahay and Mr. Abhay Krishna, Advocates For the State :

Mr. Anil Kr. Singh No.1, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following relief:

"That this application is being filed for Quashing of the order of Cognizance dated 16/10/2008 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Benipur, Darbhanga against the petitioner in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 275/2006 dated 09/12/2006 & G.R. No. 276/06 & Tr. No. 94/14 for the offences punishable u/s 323/ 379/ 498A/ 494/ 34 of the I.P.C. and u/s 3/4 of the D.P. Act which is pending in the Court of Learned S.D.J.M., Benipur, District- Darbhanga."

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4315 of 2015 dt.25-03-2019 2/2

3. The petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been granted divorce by judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007 and, thus, there being no husband-wife relationship, the cognizance order is bad. On a direct query of the Court as to how the issue of divorce is relevant in the present case since the F.I.R. is much prior to the grant of the decree of divorce, that too, ex-parte, learned counsel did not have any answer.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds no merit in the present application. The Court below on the basis of materials before it has taken cognizance which, at this stage, cannot be said to be bad, either on facts or in law.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T