Pratibha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.15 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2017 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE District- Nalanda ====================================================== Pratibha Kumari W/O Ranjan Kumar, d/o Mahendra Prasad, Resident of village Niyamatpur, Harnaut, P.S. Harnaut, District Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.The State Of Bihar.
2.Ranjan Kumar son of Dinesh Prasad.
3. Dinesh Prasad, son of late Tuklal Mahto.
4.Urmila Devi, wife of Dinesh Prasad.
5.Pawan Kumar, son of Dinesh Prasad.
6. Gita Devi wife of Pawan Kumar.
Opposite Party no. 2 to 6 are resident of Village-Veer, P.S. Dhanaura, District Patna, at present Bajrangpuri, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Satya Ranjan Sinha For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Smt. Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15-01-2019 Heard parties.
This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 2316 of 2017 passed by ACJM-V, Nalanda, by which the learned court below has refused to take cognizance against Opposite Party Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and has taken cognizance against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 only, under Section 498A of IPC and has not taken cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 406/34 of the Indian penal code.
Petitioner has filed a complaint case against all
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.15 of 2018 dt.15-01-2019 2/3 opposite parties on 03.03.2017 arraying them as accused under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498A, 406 read with 34 of IPC in which complainant-petitioner inter alia stated that she was married to Opposite Party no. 2 Ranjan Kumar, and at the time of marriage cash, ornaments and clothes were given and she went to her matrimonial home. After 15 days of marriage, the opposite parties started abusing, assaulting and torturing complainant-petitioner for giving Rs. 2 Lacs less in dowry and was ousted from her matrimonial home and all gifts and presents were kept by them.
Complainant-petitioner was examined by the court on S.A and in support of her case three enquiry witnesses were examined. However, learned court below took cognizance of the offence against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 498A of IPC and refused to take cognizance against remaining opposite parties on the basis of materials available before the trial court, as no prima facie case could be made out against them.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the court below committed error by not taking cognizance against opposite party nos. 4 to 6 and under different sections of IPC as from the complaint petition, S.A of complainant and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.15 of 2018 dt.15-01-2019 3/3 statement of enquiry witnesses there were sufficient materials before the court below, making out a prima facie case against opposite party nos. 4 to 6 and offences under different sections of IPC.
After going through the complaint petition, statement made by complainant on S.A. and enquiry witnesses, this Court does not find any error or irregularity in the order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 2316 of 2017 by ACJM-V, Nalanda. The trial court is empowered to alter, modify or add charge at any stage of trial. The criminal revision petition is disposed of.
(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 22.01.2019 Transmission Date 22.01.2019