P. Rishi Prakash v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3611 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -19 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== P. Rishi Prakash, son of Dr. Ram Samar Singh, resident of Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Type III/12, Tractor Nagar P.S.- Bundi, District Sihore, Madhya Pradesh.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Prakriti Vala wife of Rishi Prakash, daughter of Samar Prakash, resident of Punjabi Colony, Gali No.1, P.O. Dharampur, P.S. Nagar, DistrictSamastipur, currently residing with P. Rishi Prakash son of Dr. Ram Samar Singh, resident of Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Type III/12, Tractor Nagar P.S.- Bundi, District Sihore, Madhya Pradesh. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the First Information Report of Mahila P.S.Case No. 19 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 324 and 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations made in the First Information Report lodged on the basis of written report of the opposite party no.2 do

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3611 of 2018 (2) dt.17-07-2018 2/2 attract ingredients of a cognizable offence. It is well settled that if a cognizable offence is reported to the S.H.O., he is bound to register the same as First Information Report and investigate the same.

In that view of the matter, I see no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U T