Patna High Court - Orders
Randheer Prasad Singh @ Randhir Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 27 April, 2012
Author: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.31073 of 2010
======================================================
Randheer Prasad Singh @ Randhir Kumar son of Sri Dwarika Prasad
resident of village Benipur Arai, P.S. Daniyanba, Distt- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Kavita Kumari wife of Ran Vijay Kumar Singh, Resident of village
Benipur Arai, P.S. Daniyanba, Distt- Patna at present residing at D/o Sri
Satya Narayan Prasad, Satya Narayan Market, Boring Road, Town and
District- Patna.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P.P. for the State.
2. In spite of appearance of O.P.No.2 none appeared at her side to defend the order impugned.
3. Petitioner, who happens to be brother-in-law of complainant has challenged successive orders of the learned lower court passed in Complaint Case No. 3252 (C)/2005 pending before SDJM, Patna dated 07.01.2006 whereby and whereunder he along with others has been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 of the IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as order dated 29 th July 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 90/2006 by which dismissed the revision in context of Section Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31073 of 2010 (3) dt.27-04-2012 2 498A, ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. O.P. No.2/complainant had filed complaint petition against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law along with others putting an allegation that during stay at her Sasural they have tortured her for fulfillment of demand of dowry and she got herself ousted there- from to save her own life as well as life of her minor child.
5. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner stood on better footing that of sister-in-law Ranjeeta Kumari whose prayer was acceded vide Cr. Misc. No. 30536 of 2010 by order dated 23.04.2012. Also submitted that with regard to nature of allegation, there happens to be omnibus allegation which shows that petitioner has been implicated just out of oblique motive to tease and harass the family members. Also submitted that after all, the legal obligation only fastens upon the husband who is accountable for the same and none else. As such, summoning of petitioner appears to be bad in law.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that for the present purpose only, prima facie case has to be seen. Further submitted that the finding of the learned lower court has further been concurred by the court of revision and unless and until the finding appears to be perverse, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31073 of 2010 (3) dt.27-04-2012 3 the same cannot be interfered with.
7. So far application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, there is no barrier save and except visualizing that the same has been filed to frustrate the rigour prescribed under Section 397 Sub-clause-2 of the Cr.P.C whereunder 2nd revision is non permissible. Now coming to the facts of the case, to see whether it has been passed without consideration of material on record para-5 of the revisional order speaks appreciation of evidence by the learned revisional court more particularly of CW- 1 Satya Narain Prasad and CW-2 Devendra Prasad including the S.A of complainant. While considering the case of Ranjeeta Kumari, referred above, the learned Revisional court had by- passed the event which was itself visualizing from the complaint petition.
8. With regard to the plea of the petitioner, I feel that the instant petition appears to frustrate the prohibition prescribed under Section 397, Subclause-2 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Consequent thereupon, the instant petition is found to be non maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) perwez