Patna High Court - Orders
Janardhan Rai & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 22 April, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 41128 of 2010
===================================================
1. Janardhan Rai, S/o Late Arjun Rai
2. Ram Sumiran Singh, S/o Late Sri Janardhan Rai
Both residents of village Dharmpur, P.O.- Andhari, P.S. -
Chouri, District- Bhojpur. Presently residing at Maharana
Pratap Nagar, P.S. Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smt. Poonam Sharma, w/o Sri Ram Subhag Singh,
claiming to be presently residing at Maharana Pratap
Nagar, P.S. - Ara Nawada, District Bhojpur, but residing
at c/o- Sri Hridyanand Sharma, New Karman Tola,
Southern side of Sadar Hospital, Ara, P.S.- Ara Nawada,
District- Bhojpur.
.... .... Opposite Parties
===================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Patanjali Rishi
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh,APP
Mr. Nilesh Kumar
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
17. 22-04-2014Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of complainant/opp. party no. 2.
Two petitioners, who are father-in-law and elder brother of husband of complainant/opp. party no. 2 respectively, have approached this Court with a prayer to quash entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 955(C) of 2009, including the order dated 08-02-2010 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ara (in short "Magistrate"). By order dated 08-02-2010, the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41128 of 2010 (17) dt.22-04-2014 2/4 learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498(A), 352 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that prior to lodging of the present complaint petition, the father of the opp. party no. 2 had initially filed a complaint case, vide Complaint Case No. 766(C) of 2007 for offence under Sections 323, 327, 380, 420, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said complaint was referred to the police and accordingly, Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 108 of 2007 was registered for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, during the pendency of the earlier police case, dispute in between the accused persons, except husband of the complainant, was settled and an award was prepared before the Lok Adalat. As per terms & conditions, Rs. 1,20,000/- (one lac & twenty thousand) was deposited, as Fixed Deposit in the name of complainant, two room accommodation was also provided to the complainant. Besides this, the complainant was required to get Rs. 900/- (nine hundred) per month for maintenance. Due to some reasons, it was submitted that maintenance amount was not deposited. However, in the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41128 of 2010 (17) dt.22-04-2014 3/4 meanwhile, the present complaint petition was filed by the complainant and order of cognizance was passed, which is under challenge.
Learned counsel for petitioners has filed a supplementary affidavit on 10th of February 2014 and it has been indicated that arrears of maintenance amount @ Rs. 900/- per month has already been deposited in the bank account of complainant and petitioners undertake that said maintenance amount i.e. Rs. 900/- per month shall regularly be deposited in the account of the complainant/opp. party no. 2.
In view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned counsel for complainant/opp. party no. 2 submits that the complainant may not pursue the present complaint petition.
Since the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant will not pursue the complaint petition, provided maintenance amount is regularly paid, there is no reason to allow the proceeding to further proceed against the petitioners before the court below in Complaint Case No. 955(C) of 2009.
Accordingly, order of cognizance dated Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41128 of 2010 (17) dt.22-04-2014 4/4 08-02-2010 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 955(C) of 2009, so far as petitioners are concerned, is hereby set aside. It is made clear that if the condition regarding payment of maintenance amount is violated, the complainant would be at liberty to file a petition for re-opening of the present case.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay