GYANENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ GYANENDRA SINGHversusState Of Bihar and Anr

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59820 of 2017
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2015 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Gyanendra Kumar Singh @ Gyanendra Singh, Son of Late Mahesh Singh
                 resident of village - Ibrahimpur, P.S. - Bikram, District - Patna.
                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.     State of Bihar
           2.     Raj Kumari Devi W/o Dhiraj Kumar @ Daughter of Jaideo Singh, Resident
                  of Village - Bakhorapur, P.S. - Barhara, District - Bhojpur Ara.
                                                                          ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, Adv.
                 For the State            :        Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
                 For the O.P. No. 2       :        None.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   02-02-2026                   The instant petition has been filed under Section 482

                   of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, with a

                   prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 22.08.2016

                   passed by the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

                   Magistrate, Bhojpur (Arrah), in Bhojpur Arrah Mahila P.S. Case

                   No. 129/2015, G.R. No. 3703/2015, and Tr. No. 4589/2016, by

                   which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323

                   and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

                   Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken

                   against the petitioner.

                                 2. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel

                   appearing for the petitioner, submits that the FIR of Arrah

                   Mahila P.S. Case No. 129/2015 is based on the complaint filed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59820 of 2017(5) dt.02-02-2026
                                            2/3




          by the O.P. No. 2, a copy of which has been filed with this

          petition     as    Annexure-‘1’,         and     from   perusal   of   the

          FIR/complaint, it is clearly evident that against the petitioner,

          who is the cousin father-in-law of O.P. No. 2, there is no

          specific allegation with regard to the offences of which

          cognizance has been taken. The complainant herself admitted in

          her complaint that she had been living at her matrimonial house

          since February 2012, and the complaint was filed by O.P. No. 2

          in the year 2015, therefore, the allegation of continuously

          torturing O.P. No. 2 by the co-accused persons, including the

          petitioner, is completely false and unbelievable. The petitioner is

          separate in all respects from the family of the husband of the

          O.P. No. 2, as he was separated from the in-laws of O.P. No. 2

          for about 40 years ago since he joined service in a bank, and he

          had no reason to be involved with the in-laws of O.P. No. 2 in

          making the alleged demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five

          Lakhs). Though the complainant/O.P. No. 2 has made some

          specific allegations in her complaint, however, none of them are

          against this petitioner. It is lastly submitted that before the court

          of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Arrah, the

          complainant accepted her compromise with her husband, due to

          the said reason, she has not appeared before this Court despite

          notice having been served upon her.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59820 of 2017(5) dt.02-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                                  3. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2.

                                  4. Though Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, learned APP

                     appearing for the State, has opposed this petition but he fairly

                     accepts that the petitioner is a distant relative of the husband of

                     the O.P. No. 2 and in the FIR, there is no specific allegation

                     against him.

                                  5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, and mainly

                     taking into account the facts that there is no specific allegation

                     against the petitioner with regard to the alleged demand of

                     money and cruelty, and the petitioner is the cousin father-in-law

                     of the O.P. No. 2, I am of the view that subjecting the petitioner

                     to trial for the alleged offences of which cognizance has been

                     taken would amount to a complete abuse of the process of the

                     court. As such, the impugned order taking cognizance of the

                     alleged offences, to the extent of the petitioner, and the

                     subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner

                     in light of the said cognizance order are hereby quashed. In the

                     result, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition stands

                     allowed.


                                               (Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
U      T