Vishwajeet Soni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80242 of 2019 Arising out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2017 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Vishwajeet Soni Son of Ramanuj Prasad Soni @ Ramanuj Prasad Resident of Village - Jagdev Nagar Bypass, P.S.- Aurangabad, Distt - Aurangabad. (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Manju Devi @ Verma Manju Ben Wife of Vishwajeet Soni Resident of Village - Jagdev Nagar Bypass, P.S.- Aurangabad, Distt - Aurangabad. (Bihar). Presently residing at Village - Gorari, P.S.- Karakat, Distt - Rohtas at Sasaram.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL ORDER 03-11-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the instant case, on 06.12.2019, the Court had noticed to opposite party no. 2 and it is ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. Again on 10.02.2020 and 04.03.2020, the Court had issued fresh notice to opposite party no. 2. It is a complaint case no. 232 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohats at Sasaram. It is learnt that due to order dated 06.12.2019 passed in the present petition the entire

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80242 of 2019(5) dt.03-11-2021 2/2 complaint case has been stalled.

In the light of these facts and circumstances and the Apex Court judgment in the case Nathu Singh vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2021) 6 SCC 64 held that the Courts shall not grant interim protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has not made out a case for bail, the petition stands dismissed.

State counsel has no instruction in view of the fact that it is a complaint case.

Further, at this juncture, learned counsel submitted that the parties are likely to settle the dispute amicably before the District Mediation Centre as such the parties are at liberty to approach the concerned District Mediation Centre. The concerned Mediation Centre is hereby directed to expedite the matter in the event of any such application or memorandum is presented.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) Vikash/- U T