Himanshu Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49569 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-531 Year-2019 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Himanshu Raj Son Of Rajendra Sahni Resident Of Village- Flat No 2b, Devahuti Kutir, Shivpuri Post And Ps -SHASTRINAGAR, District -PATNA 2.

Rajendra Sahni Son Of Chhathu Sahani Resident Of Village- Flat No 2b, Devahuti Kutir, Shivpuri Post And Ps -SHASTRINAGAR, District -PATNA 3.

Sunaina Devi Wife Of Rajendra Sahani Resident Of Village- Flat No 2b, Devahuti Kutir, Shivpuri Post And Ps -SHASTRINAGAR, District -PATNA 4.

Anu Ranjita Daughter Of Rajendra Sahani Resident Of Village- Flat No 2b, Devahuti Kutir, Shivpuri Post And Ps -SHASTRINAGAR, District -PATNA 5.

Mayank Raj Son Of Rajendra Sahani Resident Of Village- Flat No 2b, Devahuti Kutir, Shivpuri Post And Ps -SHASTRINAGAR, District -PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Ruby Sahani Wife Of Himanshu Raj Resident Of Village- Flat No 2b, Devahuti Kutir, Shivpuri Post And Ps -SHASTRINAGAR, District -PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Tewary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.

Mr. Ratna Deep Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-03-2024 This application has been file for quashing order dated 25.06.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Patna whereby cognizance has been taken against these petitioners for offences under Section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of Charge-sheet bearing No. 441 of 2019 dated 23.09.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49569 of 2023(2) dt.18-03-2024 2/2 during pendency of the case, the dispute between the parties have been compromised and petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 are living together since last four years as husband and wife.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the contention made on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Considering the nature of dispute and factum of compromise between the parties, order dated 25.06.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Patna is quashed with respect to these petitioners.

5. Accordingly, this quashing application stands allowed.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T