Savita Devi And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52638 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-994 Year-2016 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.
Savita Devi Wife of Late Manoranjan Das @ Manoj Das, 2.
Dipak Kumar, 3.
Raju Kumar, 4.
Punam Bhaskar @ Munni Kumari, All sons and daughter of Late Manoranjan Das @ Manoj Das, Resident of Village- Nayagaon, P.S.- Parbatta, District- Khagaria, at present Mohalla- Dharam Samaj, P.S.- Chhatauni, District- Motihari, East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Menka Kumari, Wife of Jitendra Kumar, D/o Mahesh Das, Resident of Village- Sirjua, P.S.- Maheshkhunt, District- Khagaria. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-12-2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. On query of the Court from the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the stage of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly submitted that despite his best endeavour, he could not seek instruction in the matter either from the petitioners or the deponent of the affidavit as such he is not in a position to abreast the Court with the present status of the case.
3. Learned A.P.P. for the State thus submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52638 of 2017(2) dt.06-12-2023 2/2 present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 28.04.2017 whereby cognizance of the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken. It is further submitted that much water has flown and since the petitioners have not contacted the learned counsel for the petitioners it amply demonstrates that by now the stage of the case must have changed or the trial might have been concluded.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to entertain the quashing application.
5. Accordingly, the quashing application stands dismissed.
6. However, the same would not denude the petitioners availing all the issues at the time of framing of charges if charges till date have not been framed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T