Chandan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28977 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-377 Year-2017 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== Chandan Kumar Singh S/o Dinesh Prasad Singh Resident of MohallaBarihar, P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Puja Kumari D/o Pravesh Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla- Sukh Nagar Law College, P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnea.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-08-2019 Heard Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2.

The petitioner, who is the husband of Opposite Party No. 2, seeks quashing of the order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been rejected as well as against the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2019, whereby

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28977 of 2019(4) dt.27-08-2019 2/3 the order of refusal to discharge by the Magistrate, referred to above, has been upheld and affirmed.

Apart from the facts relating to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that despite having accepted a draft of Rs. 15,00,000/- (fifteen lakhs) towards all her matrimonial dues and the assurance given by Opposite Party No. 2 that she would cooperate in obtaining divorce by mutual consent and that she shall withdraw cases on all fronts, the petitioner is still being prosecuted by Opposite Party No. 2 in the trial. As opposed to the aforesaid contention, Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2 has stated that the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- has never been accepted by Opposite Party No. 2. She was forcibly made to sign on the photocopy of such draft, about which a complaint has been made by her not only before the Family Court where the case is pending but also in the concerned police station.

In any view of the matter, the parties / spouses are not ready to settle the dispute outside the Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28977 of 2019(4) dt.27-08-2019 3/3 After the petition for discharge was rejected by the court below, the case of the petitioner has gone in trial and four witnesses have been examined by now.

At this stage, therefore, this Court would not deem it appropriate to initiate the process of reconciliation which has been requested on behalf of the petitioner but not concurred by the Opposite Party No. 2 whose, opinion has been echoed by the counsel representing her.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court refuses to interfere with the orders which have been impugned in the present petition.

The petition is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) skm/- U