Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78887 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

Pankaj Kumar Son of Laljeet Ram, Resident of Village-Bankipur Machhariyawan, P.O.-Bankipur Machhariyawan, P.S.-Fatuha, District-Patna (Bihar), Pin Code No.-803201.

2.

Laljeet Ram Son of Laldas Mochi, Resident of Village-Bankipur Machhariyawan, P.O.-Bankipur Machhariyawan, P.S.-Fatuha, District-Patna (Bihar), Pin Code No.-803201.

3.

Shobha Devi Wife of Laljeet Ram, Resident of Village-Bankipur Machhariyawan, P.O.-Bankipur Machhariyawan, P.S.-Fatuha, District-Patna (Bihar), Pin Code No.-803201.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Sangeeta Devi Wife of Rajeev Kumar, Resident of Village-Bankpur Machhariyawan, Post-Bankipur Machhariyawan, P.S.-Fatuha, District-Patna (Bihar), Pin Code No.-803201.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subhash Patel, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 03-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Petitioners in the present case are seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Biharsharif (Nalanda) Mahila P.S. Case No. 112 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 341, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has read out the entire FIR. It is his submission that there are sufficient materials

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78887 of 2019(2) dt.03-12-2019 2/2 enclosed with the present application which would show that there was no marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant and that would be sufficient ground to quash the FIR. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR as according to him a bare reading of the first information report would show that there are specific allegations against the petitioners of commission of cognizable offence and the matter is still under investigation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that the written complaint lodged by the informant giving rise to the present case does disclose the commission of cognizable offence.

The matter is still under investigation and at this stage it is not for this Court to look into the materials which are being enclosed with this application. The petitioners may bring all those materials to the notice of the Investigating Officer. At this stage, this Court does not find any reason to quash the first information report. The application is dismissed.