Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39010/2015dismissed

Ravi Ranjan Prasad And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2020-08-27Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 39010 of 2015 Arising out of PS. Case No.-37 Year -2014 Thana -Mahila, District- Gopalganj ==========================================================

1. Ravi Ranjan Prasad, Son of Shiv Narayan Prasad.

2. ShivNarayan Prasad, Son of Late Bishundeo Prasad.

3. Draupati Devi, wife of Shiv Narayan Prasad. All three are residents of Village + P.O.- Kitadih, P.S. - Parsudih, District - East Singhbhum, State - Jharkhand

4. Sanjay Prasad, Son of Sri Yamuna Prasad

5. Ampi Devi, wife of Sanjay Prasad.

6. Both are residents of Village - Krishnapuri, Harhar Gumu, P.S. - Bagbera, Town - Jamshedpur, District -East Singhbhum, State - Jharkhand ..... ......Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Smt. Tanulata, wife of Ravi Ranjan, Daughter of Late Parshuram Prasad, resident of village -Binod Matihaaiya, P.S. - Bishambharpur, District - Gopalganj, At present resident of Mohalla - Adhiwakta Nagar, Banjari Road, Gopalganj.

..... ......Opposite Parties ========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Gautam, APP ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05.

27.08.2020.

Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

The State is represented by Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Gautam, learned APP,

This is an application seeking quashing of the F.I.R of Mahila P.S. Case No. 37 of 2014 dated 19.07.2014 instituted for the offence under Sections 323, 406, 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

This is a matrimonial dispute.

On 05.03.2018, a report regarding the status of the case as well as the case diary was called for with a direction to send the same within a period of two weeks.

Thereafter, the matter could not be heard for some reason or the other, However, the report as called for by a bench of this Court has been received. The report has been signed on 09.03.2018 indicating that chargesheet in this case has been filed on 14.02.2017, thereafter, cognizance has been taken on 24.03.2017.

In that view of the matter, this petition has practically become infructuous.

This petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) Sunil/- U T