Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31519/2016dismissed

Vishnu Mohali @ Mohti @ Bishnu Maholi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-02-20Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31519 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1137 Year- 2013 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- BANKA ====================================================== Vishnu Mohali @ Mohti @ Bishnu Maholi son of Pankaj Maholi resident of Village- Amra, Kanoli, P.S. Poraiya Hat, District- Godda (Jharkhand). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sunita Devi wife of Bishnu Maholi, resident of Village- Amra, Kanoli, P.S. Poraiya Hat, District- Godda (Jharkhand). .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Anusuiya Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07/ 20-02-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State and the complainant-opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner being the husband of the complainant is apprehending his arrest in a complaint case wherein process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The basic accusation is of torture for nonfulfillment of the dowry demand. On submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, though, the petitioner admits his marriage with the complainant but the petitioner has performed second marriage and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31519 of 2016 (7) dt.20-02-2017 2/2 the complainant has also performed second marriage, notices were issued to the complainant vide order dated 03.10 2016. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, at present, he has no instruction since the petitioner is not appearing since last several occasions. However, counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2 submits that the complainant has not performed second marriage and is ready to resume the conjugal life in spite of the fact that the petitioner has performed second marriage. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has no instruction, this application is dismissed.

Let the order be transmitted to the court of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka in connection with Complaint Case No. 1137 of 2013.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T