Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54722/2018dismissed

Manoj Sharma v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2019-02-11Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54722 of 2018 Arising Out of P.S. Case No. - Year- Thana- District- Buxar ====================================================== Manoj Sharma Son of Late Keshwar Sharma Resident of Village 21A/A, JDA - 15, New Ram Nagar , P.S. Adhartal, District - Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh).

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rubi Devi wife of Manoj Sharma, Daughter of Harihar Nath Sharma Resident of Chhumantar Gali, P.S. Rpad, Tadka Nala, Buxar, P.S. Buxar Town, District - Buxar.

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate.

For the State :

APP For the Complainant : Mr. Digvijay Kumar Ojha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 11-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 18, 19, 22 and 28 of the Domestic Violence Act registered in connection with Cr. Misc. No. 03 of 2017 arising out of Domestic Violence Case Case No. 166(C) of 2016.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and in any event the domestic violence case has been filed in the year 2016 whereas she was allegedly ousted from her matrimonial home in 2007.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant appears and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54722 of 2018(5) dt.11-02-2019 2/2 submits that she earlier filed Complaint Case No. 486(C) of 2006 and again Complaint Case No. 1006C of 2009 under Section 498(A) and allied sections of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has flouted the orders of the learned Court below and has not paid anything to the complainant despite direction for payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- per month as well as compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- by order dated 14.11.2016.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T