Yunus Wahab @ Yunus Abdul Bahab v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54930 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-776 Year-2014 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Yunus Wahab @ Yunus Abdul Bahab ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh Mr/s. Sudha Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-01-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no.2. There is specific allegation of torture and demand of dowry. No doubt, notices were issued on the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 also received the notice, but still, she chooses not to appear and contest.
3. The learned Additional P. P. submits that the fact that the opposite party no.2 after receiving notice, chooses not to appear that amply demonstrates that how badly the opposite party no.2 was tortured in name of dowry. The learned Additional P. P. further submits that it has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that even the children are staying with the opposite party no.2, who is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54930 of 2017(3) dt.08-01-2024 2/2 working in United Arab Emirates, but then, the notice was received by the opposite party no.2 in India as would manifest from the office report dated 05.01.2024. It is next submitted that petitioner, being the husband is alleged to have tortured the opposite party no.2 for dowry and is not taking care of the children, who are residing with the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner can raise all issues at the time of framing of charge and the learned trial Court would be in a better position to deal with the discharge application of the petitioner.
4. Considering the submission made by the learned Additional P. P., the Court is not inclined to entertain the quashing application.
5. The quashing application is rejected accordingly, however, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all issues at the time of framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T