IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR.MISC. NO.31569 OF 2008
1. SANJAY SINGH, SON OF NARESH SINGH
2. NARESH SINGH, SON OF LATE HARI SINGH
3. SHAILA DEVI, WIFE OF NARESH SINGH
4. RINKU KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF NARESH SINGH
5. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF NARESH SINGH
6. AJIT KUMAR, SON OF NARESH SINGH
7. SANJU DEVI, WIFE OF SANJAY SINGH
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE URASA, POLICE STSATION HASUA,
DISTRICT NAWADA
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. ANANDI SINGH, SON OF KRISHNANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
ASMA, POLICE STATION PAKARIWARAWA, DISTRICT NAWADA
*********
2 28/06/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order
dated 02.05.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 21 of
2008 by which the Sessions Judge, Nawada has affirmed
the order dated 28.03.2008 passed in Complaint Case
No. 14 of 2006 by which the Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Nawada has taken cognizance for the offences
alleged to have been committed under Sections 498A and
304B of the Indian Penal Code.
The background of the case is that a First
Information Report was instituted. On investigation, it
was found that the case under Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code was not true. The Chief Judicial Magistrate
accepted the final form but subsequently, cognizance was
2
taken on the basis of the protest petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits
that the case is completely untrue. The deceased lady
was married as far back as in the year 1987 with
petitioner no. 1 and they have been living as husband
and wife without any problem. The present case has been
filed just to harass the husband and other family
members who are well placed in life and to extract money
out of them. Learned Counsel further submits that
Annexure-2 series and the voters list is sufficient to
indicate that the marriage takes place in the year 1987
and as such, it does not fall within the purview of Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that
the allegation under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code are very misplaced as the marriage is about 16
years old.
All these aspects of the matter cannot be
considered by this Court at this stage.
The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all
these points at the appropriate stage of the case.
This application is accordingly dismissed.
Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)