Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82927/2019dismissed

Sohel Kumar Soni @ Sohal Kumar Soni v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-22Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82927 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2018 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== Sohel Kumar Soni @ Sohal Kumar Soni Son Of Late Vishwanath Prasad Resident Of Village- Sujawad, New Vasti, Padaoo Par, Behind Khoravir Mata Mandi, P.S.- Ram Nagar, District- Varanasi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar 2.

Smt. Krian Soni D/O- Sri Anil Prasad Resident Of Sonar Toli, Uttar Bazar, P.O. Warisaliganj, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada, Pin- 805130 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the cognizance order dated 29.01.2019 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 305 of 2018 filed on 04.04.2018 wherein the cognizance has been taken under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the DP Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of torturing the victim due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82927 of 2019(6) dt.22-01-2026 2/2 implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and fabricated.

5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the application of the petitioner

6. I have heard and considered the submissions made by the respective parties. From the perusal of the materials available on records, it appears that the allegations of dowry demand and torture made against the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant, are supported by materials and evidence.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

8. The interim protection granted to the petitioner by order dated 13.12.2019 is hereby vacated.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T