Patna High Court

Dilip Kumar SanjitversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 3 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The court held that the proceedings were infructuous and therefore the order taking cognizance was quashed.

Summary

Petitioners Dilip Kumar Sanjit and Radhika Devi filed petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash an order dated 09‑08‑2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 379, 406, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They argued that the criminal cases had become infructuous and should be disposed of. The State of Bihar raised no objection to the prayer. The Court, after hearing counsel, agreed that the proceedings were infructuous and ordered the cases to be disposed of. Consequently, the order taking cognizance was set aside and the petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the proceedings have become infructuous.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 323, 379, 406, 498A

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
infructuous proceedings
quash order
cognizance
Dowry Prohibition Act
criminal miscellaneous petition

Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28067 of 2018
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2017 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE
                                        District- Jehanabad
     ======================================================
     Dilip Kumar Sanjit S/o Dharmdeo Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Bari Co-Operative
     Colony, House No.234, P.S.- Sector 12, Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro
     Jharkhand.

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   State Of Bihar
2.   Sruti Kumari W/o Dilip Kumar Sanjit, D/o Late Laxman Saran Singh, At
     present resident of Vill.P.O.- Babhana, P.S. District- Jehanabad.

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
                                          with
                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 27226 of 2018
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-17 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE
                                        District- Jehanabad
     ======================================================
1.    Radhika Devi, Wife of Dharmdeo Prasad.
2.   Dharmdeo Prasad, son of Bhuneshwar Mahto, Both resident of Mohalla-
     Bari Co-operative Coloney, House No. 234, P.S.- Sector 12, Bokaro Steel
     City, District- Bokaro Jharkhand.

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   State Of Bihar
2.   Sruti Kumari, Wife of Dilip Kumar Sanjit, daughter of Late Laxman Saran
     Singh, at present resident of Village P.O.- Babhana, P.S. District- Jehanabad.

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 28067 of 2018)
     For the Petitioner/s    : Mr. Indu Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate
     For the State           : Mr. Sri Shantanu Kumar, APP
     For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate

     (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 27226 of 2018)
     For the Petitioner/s    : Mr. Indu Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate
     For the State           : Mr. Sri Shantanu Kumar, APP
     For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
                           ORAL ORDER
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28067 of 2018(4) dt.03-02-2026
                                                          2/2




4    03-02-2026                         Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

                        counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                     2. The present petitions have been filed under Section

                        482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order 09.08.2017 passed by the

                        learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in Complaint Case

                        No. 12 of 2017 by which cognizance was taken against the

                        petitioners under Sections 498(A), 323, 379, 406 & 120B of the

                        I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

                                     3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                        these cases have become infructuous, accordingly, the same may

                        be disposed of.

                                     4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has no objection to this

                        prayer of the petitioners.

                                     5. Considering the submissions of the learned

                        counsels for the parties, the aforesaid cases are disposed of

                        having become infructuous.



                                                (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
rakhi/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…