Kumar Abhimanu And ORS v. The State Of Bihar Through Home Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar ,Patna And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.694 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ===========================================================
1. Kumar Abhimanu Son of Late Ayodhya Singh, Resident of village- Idgah, P.S.- Dehri, District- Rohtas, Bihar
2. Dwarika Mahto Son of Late Mallu Mahto
3. Asha Devi Wife of Dwarika Mahto.
Both Resident of village- Darua, P.S.- Pandu, District- Palamu, Jharkhand
4. Arti Devi Wife of Abhishek Kumar Resident of village- Tandwa, P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand
5. Chandan Kumar Son of Dwarika Mahto, Resident of village- Tandwa, P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar ,Patna
2. The Superintendent of Police, District- Rohtas
3. The Officer - in - Charge of Mahila P.S.- Dehri-on-sone, District- Rohtas
4. Reena Devi Wife of Kumar Abhumanu Resident of village- Idgah, P.S.- Dehri, District- Rohtas, Bihar .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Adv. For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, G.P.-16. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ application has been filed for quashing the FIR of Dehri Mahila P.S.Case No. 07 of 2016 registered under Sections 498(A), 498,497, 366, 323, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
3. Learned State Counsel has filed a counter affidavit, stating therein that in this case, chargesheet has
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.694 of 2016 dt.07-12-2017 been submitted only against the petitioner No.1, Kumar Abhimanu, who is husband of respondent No.4 Reena Devi. Other petitioners had not been sent up for trial.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also concedes that the cognizance has been taken only against the petitioner No.1 by the learned court below.
5. After hearing the parties and without disclosing the mind on the merit of the case, this writ application is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise their points at the stage of hearing on charge.
6. With aforesaid observation, this writ application stands disposed of.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date15.12.2017 Transmission Date 15.12.2017