Vishwambhar Nath Dubey And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54625 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2011 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== 1.

Vishwambhar Nath Dubey son of Kamta Dubey 2.

Vimla Devi wife of Vishwambhar Nath Dubey 3.

Rajesh Dubey @ Rajesh Kumar Dubey son of Vishwambhar Nath Dubey 4.

Sheo Kumari Dubey @ Sheo Kumari Devi wife of Rajesh Dubey 5.

Sweta Ojha @ Guria wife of Satish Ojha 6.

Arvind Shukla son of late Surya Shukla 7.

Rani Shukla wife of Arvind Shukla 8.

Akhilesh Kumar Dubey @ Akhilesh Dubey son of Vishwambhar Nath Dubey All are residents of village Nimej, Police Station Brahmpur, District Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Purnita Devi wife of Brijbhan Ojha resident of village Nimej, Police Station Brahmpur, District Buxar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Smt. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Buxar in Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2011, G.R. No. 2294 of 2011 by which the learned court below has framed charge under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54625 of 2015(2) dt.30-08-2023 2/2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and the learned court below without applying his judicial mind in a mechanical manner proceeded to take cognizance under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and framed charges against the petitioners.

4. The Court is not inclined to entertain this application simply for the reason that charges have been framed which signifies commencement of the trial.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T