Patna High Court - Orders
Sajjan Kumar Jha And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 5 October, 2023
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25795 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2013 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Sajjan Kumar Jha Son of late Nitya Nand Jha.
2. Meena devi Wife of late Nitya Nand Jha. Both are Resident of Village-
Shivdham Madhubani, Police Station-Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnia.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Munni Devi @ Munni Jha Wife of Ashok Kumar Jha, Daughter of Hario
Kant Jha Both are Resident of Village-Shivdham Madhubani, Police Station-
Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnia. at Present residing at Village Ragheli, Police
Station Dandkhora District Katihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-10-20231. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. Issue notice to the Opposite Party No. 2 by both modes i.e. registered cover with A/D as well as ordinary post for which requisites etc. must be filed on or before 19.10.2023 failing which the present quashing application shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench.
3. Put up this case on 20.02.2024.
4. In the meantime, further proceedings arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 17 of 2013, CIS No. 1945 of 2013, G.R. No. 1089 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Sub- Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25795 of 2017(2) dt.05-10-2023 2/3 Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnia shall remain stayed, as it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is brother-in-law of O.P. No. 2 and petitioner no. 2 is mother-in-law of O.P. No. 2 and charges have been framed and the trial has commenced, but not a single witness, till date, has been examined. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the same does not inspire confidence and the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that whenever any dispute arises in between the husband and wife, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner, it is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 was married to the son of petitioner no. 2 in the year 2000 and out of the wedlock, they have two children and in the year 2013, the FIR came to be instituted with an allegation that the accused persons were demanding dowry and for non- fulfillment of the same, she was tortured, but then the FIR does not even remotely suggest that in what manner, the O.P. No. 2 was being tormented, tortured or assaulted for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that though the allegations as alleged in the FIR are general and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25795 of 2017(2) dt.05-10-2023 3/3 omnibus in nature and even the police after threadbare investigation submitted final form exonerating the petitioner no. 1 of the allegations, but in a mechanical manner submitted charge sheet against the petitioner no. 2 and the learned Trial Court differing with the police report took cognizance against the petitioner no. 1 also when during the course of investigation, no material had come to connect the petitioners with the offence.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/-
U T