Satyabhama Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22660 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-499 Year-2022 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== 1.
SATYABHAMA DEVI WIFE OF LATE HARIBALLAV YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RATAN WARD NO 9,POST OFFICE- RATAN, PS GOGARI, JAMALPUR, DISTRICT KHAGARIA 2.
SANDHYA KUMARI WIFE OF LAKSHMAN YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GHOGHA BAZAR WARD NO. 13, SHANKARPUR KHWAS, PS- GHOGHA KAHALGAON, DISTT- BHAGALPUR 3.
RUPA KUMARI WIFE OF VISHAL RANJAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGERAMPUR, POST OFFICE- JAMALPUR, PS- GOGARI RAMPUR, DISTKHAGARIA 4.
RUBY KUMARI WIFE OF DHARMVIR KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMPUR, POST OFFICE- JAMALPUR, GOGARI, PSGOGARI RAMPUR, DISTT- KHAGARIA 5.
DHARMVIR KUMAR SON OF SITARAM PRASAD YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMPUR, POST OFFICE- JAMLAPUR GOGARI, PSGOGARI RAMPUR, DISTT- KAHGARIA 6.
LAKSHMAN YADAV SON OF BASUDEO PRASAD YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GHOGHA BAZAR, WARD NO. 13, POST OFFICESHANKARPUR KHAWAS, PS- GHOGHA KAHALGAON, DISTBHAGALPUR 7.
VISHAL RANJAN SON OF NAGESHWAR PRASAD YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMPUR, POST OFFICE- JAMALPUR GOGARI, POLICE STATION- GOGARI RAMPUR, DISTT- KHAGARIA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar BIHAR 2.
NAVIKANT NAVIN SON OF LATE MOHRIL PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHAKAMORE, POST OFFICE- DHAKAMORE, PS- BANKA DISTT- BANKA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-10-2023 The petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Banka P.S. Case No. 499 of 2022 registered for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22660 of 2023(2) dt.17-10-2023 2/2 offence punishable under Section 498A, 379/34 of the IPC and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Petitioners are near relatives of the informant's daughter. The informant's daughter was married to one Rahul Kumar. The allegation is of demand of dowry and theft of articles.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a false case has been registered against all the family members of the husband of the informant's daughter because of matrimonial dispute between them. It has been submitted that upon completion of investigation the police has submitted chargesheet against all the petitioners.
4. At this stage, I am not inclined to entertain the application for quashing of the FIR as chargesheet has already been submitted.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take the plea of their false implication at appropriate stage before the court below. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Nishant/- U T