Rabindra Gupta v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50748 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -795 Year- 2013 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ========================================================== Rabindra Gupta Son of Ramadhar Sah Resident of villageRaghunathpur, P.S - Natwar, District - Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Hewanti Devi Wife of Rabindra Gupta D/o Bandhu Sah Resident of village- Karhansi P.S- Natwar, District- Rohtas .... .... Opposite Party ========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dineshwar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking quashing of the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas in Complaint Case No. 795/2013, by which cognizance of the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and petitioner has been summoned.

A perusal of the complaint petition would show that there are allegations of demand of dowry and on non-fulfillment

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50748 of 2014 dt.27-11-2017 of the same certain acts of torture have also been alleged. It transpires from the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not willing to keep the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2, the wife. According to him, the present case has been filed by the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 after the husband of the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 had already filed Matrimonial Case No. 278/2012 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 submits that his client would be ready and willing to live with the petitioner if he keeps her with full dignity and care.

So far as the present case is concerned, in the facts and circumstances where there are allegations against the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case to interfere with the order taking cognizance and issuance of summon. This should, however, not be construed as a bar to the parties in the matter of settlement outside the Court, if they so desire. This application is dismissed, accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Rajeev/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 28.11.2017 Transmission Date 28.11.2017