Dorik Thakur And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54295 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -8 Year- 2012 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- MADHUBANI ===========================================================
1. Dorik Thakur, son of late Lakshmi Thakur,
2. Ram Sakhi Devi, wife of Dorik Thakur, both resident of village- Sonmani, Police Station- Rahika, District- Madhubani.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar,
2. Rinku Devi, wife of Manoj Thakur, D/O Raghunath Thakur, resident of villageDamodarpur, Police Station- Benipatti, District- Madhubani. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. APP Mr. Krishna Narayan Jha, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 28-06-2017
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in Mahila P.S. Case No.08 of 2012 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners and another accused for the offence under Section(s) 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party No.2. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has appeared.
3. From the Complaint Petition, which was sent to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., it appears that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54295 of 2013 dt.28-06-2017 2/3 these petitioners are parents-in-law of the informant-Opposite Party No.2. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against these petitioners along with another accused for the offence under Section(s) 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and, accordingly, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate against these petitioners and another accused by order dated 26.02.2013 for the offence under Section(s) 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Main argument made on behalf of the petitioners is that there is mere general, vague and omnibus allegation against these petitioners. They have no concern with the family affairs of husband and wife. They are the old parents-in-law living separate from their son.
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2informant has submitted that these petitioners have committed physical and mental torture with the Opposite Party No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of UP and another reported in 2013(1) PLJR 10 and argued that continuance of the proceeding against these
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54295 of 2013 dt.28-06-2017 3/3 petitioners will be mere harassment on such vague and omnibus allegation.
7. Under the aforesaid circumstances, looking into the vague, general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners and also relying on the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is mere harassment and abuse of process of Court.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in Mahila P.S. Case No.08 of 2012 along with entire criminal proceeding with respect to the petitioners is hereby quashed.
9. This application is, accordingly, allowed. (Sanjay Priya, J) J.Alam/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 14-07-2017 Transmission Date 14-07-2017