Patna High CourtCR. REV./964/2015dismissed

Farida Begum v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-03-08Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.964 of 2015 ===================================== Farida Begum, wife of Nurul Hoda, resident of VillageRampur (Chainpur), Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Md. Ali @ Bhola, son of Ali Hasan

3. Mehrun Nisha, son of Ali Hasan

4. Quraisha Khatoon, Wife of Ali Hasan

5. Ali Hasan, son of Late Sahatu Mian

6. Amin @ Laloo, son of Ali Hasan

7. Bambai @ Shahnaz, son of Alamgir

8. Noor Jahan, wife of Samsuddin

9. Laila Khatton, wife Ali Hasan All from 2 to 9 are resident of village- Chainpur, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganjendra Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Roy, APP ===================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-03-2018 The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal of the opposite parties dated 05.08.2015, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in G.R. No. 1111 of 2007/Trial No. 1407 of 2015,

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.964 of 2015 (2) dt.08-03-2018 2/2 arising out of Siswan P.S. Case No. 47 of 2007, whereby the opposite parties have been acquitted of the charges under Section 498(A) and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the I.P.C."). Be it noted that the husband of the victim/wife has been convicted under Section 498A of the I.P.C.

The opposite parties are relatives of the husband of the victim/wife.

From the perusal of the judgment impugned, it clearly appears that the complainant stayed with her husband separately from the opposite parties in a rented house. This was the main basis for the learned Trial Court to conclude that it was only a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and the other members of family could not have been convicted and sentenced on that score.

Perused the judgment.

This Court is of the view that no interference is required with the judgment and order of acquittal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/- U T