Kumar Vivek @ Kumar Vivek Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67795 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-509 Year-2016 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West Champaran ====================================================== Kumar Vivek @ Kumar Vivek Rai Son Of Baleshwar Rai Resident Of Village-Saint Joseph School Road In Front Of Kidzee School MohallaDargah, Ward No.22, P.S-Town Bettiah, District-West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Namrata Kumari Daughter of Shiv Bachan Prasad Singh Resident of Village-Dak Bunglow Road, P.S-Nagar Bettiah, District-West Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Chandra, Advocate Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Rina Sinha, APP Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kashyup, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 509 of 2016 by which the Court below took cognizance against the petitioner and others under Section 323, 307, 498(A)/34 of the IPC and Section 3⁄4 of the DP Act.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report (FIR), is that Opposite Party No. 2 (the informant) was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67795 of 2019(3) dt.27-01-2026 2/3 married to the petitioner on 19.11.2013 according to Hindu customs. During the marriage settlement, the in-laws allegedly demanded a car and Rs. 11 lakh in cash as dowry. It is further alleged that the bride's family was pressured with the condition that the Baraatis (marriage party) would not be allowed to attend the marriage unless the dowry demand was fulfilled. On 15.03.2013, the father of the informant deposited Rs. 2,50,000 in his account, and on 15.11.2013, the bride's family allegedly handed over a Wagon-R Maruti car to the in-laws after taking a loan. It is further claimed that Rs. 8,50,000 had already been paid prior to this.

It is further alleged that the petitioner, who runs a hostel for 30 students, made the informant work as a maidservant to perform all household duties. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner put pressure on Opposite Party No. 2 to get a house, located in Muzaffarpur, registered in her name. Upon her refusal, the accused subjected her to cruelty and torture and tried to kill the informant by pressing a pillow over her face. Upon hearing her screams, local people arrived at the scene and saved her life and informant returned to her parental home (Maike).

4. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the parties have settled the dispute amicably, and the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67795 of 2019(3) dt.27-01-2026 3/3 (Opposite Party No. 2) has no objection to the quashing of the present case as the matter has been resolved between the parties.

5. Considering the settlement between the parties, this application is allowed.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 509 of 2016, and all the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T