Mukesh Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82352 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda ====================================================== Mukesh Pandey, Son of Bachhu Pandey, Resident of Village-Barara, Police Station-Noorsarai, District-Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Chandani Kumari, Daughter of Satya Prakash, Resident of Harnaut, P.S.- Harnaut, District-Nalanda.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rabindra Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. (Mrs.)Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-12-2019 Petitioner has moved this Court for quashing of the FIR being Mahila P.S. Nalanda Case No.122 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 313 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 had solemnized love marriage with the petitioner, but the said marriage has no sanctity of law inasmuch as the petitioner is already married having two children from his first wife.

On perusal of the FIR it appears that there are allegations against the petitioner that he concealed about his marriage and two children and allured the opposite party no.2 to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82352 of 2019(2) dt.12-12-2019 2/2 enter into a marriage with him and when the opposite party no.2 became pregnant twice this petitioner gave her medicines on a different pretext and aborted her. The informant has also alleged that when she came to know about the marriage of the petitioner and having two children, she raised her voice against the petitioner on which this petitioner gave her beatings and thrown her from the village.

In the admitted facts of this case where this petitioner himself has stated in the petition that the opposite party no.2 had solemnized love marriage and has not denied the fact that the petitioner was earlier married having two children, there being serious allegations in the FIR which is still under investigation, this Court finds no reason to invoke its inherent power to quash the FIR.

This application is wholly misconceived. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T