{"id":171659,"date":"2011-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-09-21T08:06:05","modified_gmt":"2015-09-21T02:36:05","slug":"jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011<\/div>\n
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                                            CR. REV. No.925 of 2008\n                        Jarari Shams @ Nikki wife of Tarique Imran\n                        Daughter of Shamshad Hussain resident of Dehti,\n                        Police Station- Palasi, Dist.- Araria.\n                                                              .... Petitioner.\n                                                          Versus\n                        1. State Of Bihar\n                        2. Md. Rizwan son of late Saidur Rahman present\n                            address House No.-3021, Haz Manzil, Kale Khan\n                            Maszid Vurli Marine Turimen Gate, Delhi.\n                        3. Bibi Farjano w\/o Nasud Alam d\/o late Saiyedur\n                            Rahman.\n                        4. Bibi Sajra Khatun, w\/o late Saiyedur Rahman\n                            All of permanent resident of village- Dehti\n                            P.S. Palasi, District- Araria.\n                                                     .. Opposite Parties.\n                        5. Tarique Imran son of late Saidur Rahman\n                            present address- Navodaya Vidyalaya\n                            Chandigarh (Haryana) permanent address-\n                            Village Dehti Police Station Palasi,\n                            District- Araria.\n                                                        ... Opposite parties.\n\n                                      --------\n                         For the petitioner : Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv..\n                         For the State       : Mr. Z. Hoda, APP.\n                         For the O.P. Nos.\n                                2 to 5       : Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Adv.\n                                     ---------\n\n                                     PRESENT\n                         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal\n\n                                     O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                                   (11.08.2011)\n<\/p>\n
                                     ——–\n<\/p>\n
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.                 The         complainant-petitioner        has<\/p>\n
                          preferred     this      revision    application   against<\/p>\n
                          the order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the learned<\/p>\n
                          Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr. Revision No. 11<\/p>\n
                          of 2008 by which the order dated 8.11.2007<\/p>\n
                          passed   by       the     learned    SDJM,   Araria    in<\/p>\n
                          Complaint Case No. 2138 of 2007 by which a
\n                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
prima facie case has been found against the<\/p>\n
accused, opposite party nos. 2 to 5 for the<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C.<\/p>\n
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and an order<\/p>\n
has   been    passed       for   issuance    of    summons<\/p>\n
against them, has been set aside.<\/p>\n
             2.   The prosecution case, in brief,<\/p>\n
is that the complainant was married to Tarique<\/p>\n
Imran, opposite party no. 5, in the year 2000<\/p>\n
and began to enjoy conjugal life. The accused<\/p>\n
were complaining and taunting for less dowry.<\/p>\n
The husband of the complainant was a teacher<\/p>\n
in Jawahar Navoday Vidhyalaya, Baramula (Jammu<\/p>\n
& Kasmir). There was demand of a maruti car<\/p>\n
and four lakh rupees for purchasing a flat in<\/p>\n
Delhi. When the complainant refused, she was<\/p>\n
asked to compel her father to sell the land<\/p>\n
and make arrangement for money, for which she<\/p>\n
was   subjected       to   torture    in    various     ways<\/p>\n
physically and mentally as well. The victim<\/p>\n
became pregnant, but there was no leniency in<\/p>\n
her   torture,    thereafter,        she    came   to    her<\/p>\n
Naihar and gave birth of a male child but the<\/p>\n
physical condition of the child was not good<\/p>\n
and on advice she proceeded to Delhi for the<\/p>\n
treatment of her baby. One of the accused was
\n                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
also living in Delhi in a rented house and she<\/p>\n
was persuaded to live there where the husband<\/p>\n
of the complainant used to come but they were<\/p>\n
not cooperating in the treatment of the child.<\/p>\n
On 21.7.2001 she came to know that her brother<\/p>\n
was murdered. The complainant was kept by the<\/p>\n
accused        injecting              intoxicated         materials.<\/p>\n
Finding the danger of her person and child,<\/p>\n
she came to her parents’ house in July 2001.<\/p>\n
She has been living in her parents’ house. It<\/p>\n
has further been alleged that other accused<\/p>\n
who happens to be Nanad and others are living<\/p>\n
in the same village and always threatened and<\/p>\n
put pressure for fulfillment of illegal demand<\/p>\n
of    dowry.     On         7.7.2007     all    the      accused    in<\/p>\n
collusion       with          each     other    got      the     second<\/p>\n
marriage       of           her     husband,       Tarique       Imran,<\/p>\n
thereafter, the complaint petition has been<\/p>\n
filed on 27.7.2007. After enquiry the learned<\/p>\n
SDJM   found        a       prima    facie     case      against    the<\/p>\n
accused     for         the        offence     punishable        under<\/p>\n
Section    498          A    I.P.C.     and    4    of    the     Dowry<\/p>\n
Prohibition Act and an order has been passed<\/p>\n
for    issuance         of        summons    against      them     vide<\/p>\n
order dated 8.11.2007.\n<\/p>\n
            3.              Learned         counsel        for     the\n                      4<\/span>\n\n\n\n\npetitioner         has    submitted             that     the      learned\n\nSessions       Judge          has         committed          error        in\n\ninterpretation           of     law       and    has    come        to   the\n\nconclusion          that         the            complainant              left\n\n<\/pre>\n
matrimonial house in July 2001 and since then<\/p>\n
she has been living with her parents in their<\/p>\n
house. The maximum punishment for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 498 A I.P.C. is three years and<\/p>\n
for    the    offence         under        Section       4     of    Dowry<\/p>\n
Prohibition Act is six months. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
limitation for taking cognizance in the matter<\/p>\n
is three years. The complaint petition has not<\/p>\n
been filed within three years from the date of<\/p>\n
offence nor the order taking cognizance has<\/p>\n
been passed by the learned SDJM within three<\/p>\n
years.       Therefore,          the        impugned          order       is<\/p>\n
squarely barred by limitation under Section<\/p>\n
468    Cr.     P.C.       and        in     similar          facts        and<\/p>\n
circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has<\/p>\n
quashed      the    order       taking          cognizance          in    the<\/p>\n
case   of     Arun       Vyas    &    Anr.        Vs.    Anita       Vyas,<\/p>\n
reported      in    (1999)       4     SCC       690.    The      learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate has perused the complaint petition,<\/p>\n
statement       of       the        complainant              on     solemn<\/p>\n
affirmation,         the        statement          of     prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses      and        the       materials           available         on
\n                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
record and has rightly found a prima facie<\/p>\n
case     against             the    accused    for       the    offence<\/p>\n
punishable          under          Section    498    A    I.P.C.      and<\/p>\n
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.<\/p>\n
                   4.          Learned        counsel          for    the\n\npetitioner          has        drawn     my   attention         to    the\n\n<\/pre>\n
provision contained in Section 7(2) of Dowry<\/p>\n
Prohibition Act, 1961 which reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
                         ” Nothing in Chapter
\n               XXXVI of the Code of Criminal
\n               Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) shall
\n               apply to any offence punishable
\n               under this Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    5. He has submitted that in that<\/p>\n
view of the matter there is no bar in taking<\/p>\n
cognizance for the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section        4        of    the     Dowry    Prohibition           Act.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Chapter XXXVI of Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
deals         with           the     limitation          for     taking<\/p>\n
cognizance of certain offences. In support of<\/p>\n
his contention, he has referred to a decision<\/p>\n
in the case of Arun Vyas & Anr. vs. Anita Vyas<\/a><\/p>\n
reported in 1999 BLJ (3)260: (1999) 4 SCC 690<\/p>\n
wherein it has been held that offence under<\/p>\n
Section 498 A I.P.C. is a continuing offence<\/p>\n
and     the     question            of   limitation        should      be<\/p>\n
considered in the interest of justice. In that<\/p>\n
case on 18.10.1995, the wife filed a complaint
\n                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 498 A and 406 IPC and Section<\/p>\n
190(1) Cr.P.C. alleging that she was beaten up<\/p>\n
by her husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-<\/p>\n
law for want of dowry. Under the Magistrate’s<\/p>\n
order, the police investigated the complaint<\/p>\n
under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and submitted<\/p>\n
charge-sheet (final form) under Section 498 A<\/p>\n
IPC     on     22.12.1995.       On    that    report,      the<\/p>\n
Magistrate       took     cognizance      of   the    offence<\/p>\n
under Section 498 A and 406 I.P.C. and issued<\/p>\n
summons to the accused. The case was posted on<\/p>\n
23.4.1996 for framing of charges. On that date<\/p>\n
the Magistrate found the complaint to be time<\/p>\n
barred and discharged the accused. The High<\/p>\n
Court    set    aside     the    Magistrate’s       order   and<\/p>\n
directed the Magistrate to proceed with the<\/p>\n
case and thereafter the appellant filed appeal<\/p>\n
in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that decision<\/p>\n
it     has   been       held    that    due    to    rule   of<\/p>\n
limitation the criminal justice system is not<\/p>\n
rendered       toothless       and    ineffective    and    the<\/p>\n
perpetrators of crime are not placed in an<\/p>\n
advantageous position. It has also been held<\/p>\n
that    wide    discretion       has    been   given     under<\/p>\n
Section 473 to the Court in the matter of<\/p>\n
taking cognizance of an offence after expiry
\n                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
of the period of limitation. The essence of<\/p>\n
offence in Section 498 I.P.C. is cruelty. It<\/p>\n
is a continuing offence and on each occasion<\/p>\n
on which the wife was subjected to cruelty,<\/p>\n
she     would    have    a     new   starting     point      of<\/p>\n
limitation.\n<\/p>\n
            6.    In    the    present   case,    it    is   a\n\nclear     case    of     the     petitioner      that     the\n\n<\/pre>\n
petitioner and the accused live in the same<\/p>\n
village and the accused always come to the<\/p>\n
complainant and threatened to ask her father<\/p>\n
to transfer half of the land in favour of her<\/p>\n
husband. When the demand was not fulfilled,<\/p>\n
the accused ultimately got her husband married<\/p>\n
to Bibi Noor Apshan. The petitioner continued<\/p>\n
to get mental torture.\n<\/p>\n
            7.     On    the     other    hand,     learned<\/p>\n
counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 5 submits<\/p>\n
that no offence under Dowry Prohibition Act is<\/p>\n
made out against accused, opposite party nos.<\/p>\n
2 to 5 as the demand does not come within the<\/p>\n
purview of section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act.<\/p>\n
In support of his contention, he has referred<\/p>\n
two decisions: in the case of Deo Narayan Lall<\/p>\n
Das & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported<\/p>\n
in 1992(2)PLJR 560 and in the case of Sankar
\n                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
Prosad     Shaw    &     Ors.     vs.     The   State       &   Anr.<\/p>\n
reported in 1991 Cr. Law Journal 639. In both<\/p>\n
these decisions it has been held that mere<\/p>\n
demand is not an offence under Section 4 of<\/p>\n
Dowry    Prohibition        Act,     it    should      be    either<\/p>\n
given or agreed to be given. Mere demand may<\/p>\n
be an offence under Section 498 A of the IPC.<\/p>\n
He   has     further            submitted       that        learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate        has     not     condoned      the    delay      in<\/p>\n
filing     the    complaint        petition      and    has       not<\/p>\n
applied his mind with regard to the provision<\/p>\n
contained     in    Section        473    Cr.P.C.,      as       such<\/p>\n
delay has not been condoned and the learned<\/p>\n
Sessions     has        rightly     set    aside      the       order<\/p>\n
taking cognizance against the accused.<\/p>\n
            8. After hearing learned counsel for<\/p>\n
both the parties and on perusal of the record,<\/p>\n
it appears that it is an admitted position<\/p>\n
that the petitioner is the wife of accused<\/p>\n
Tarique Imran, opposite party no. 5. It also<\/p>\n
appears that the petitioner has been tortured<\/p>\n
by the accused and torture of the petitioner<\/p>\n
has been continued even after she has come to<\/p>\n
her parents’ house. The houses of both the<\/p>\n
parties     are     in     the    same     village      and      the<\/p>\n
accused persons have been torturing her even
\n                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
at the house of her parents and lastly the<\/p>\n
petitioner has been tortured by the accused by<\/p>\n
getting the marriage of her husband to another<\/p>\n
lady.    In      view       of    the    decision     reported       in<\/p>\n
(1999)      4    SCC       690     (supra),     the    essence       of<\/p>\n
offence in Section 498 A IPC is cruelty. It is<\/p>\n
a continuing offence and on each occasion on<\/p>\n
which the wife was subjected to cruelty, she<\/p>\n
would have a new starting point of limitation.<\/p>\n
So    far   the       offence       of    demand      of    dowry    is<\/p>\n
concerned,           from    the    facts      of    this    case    it<\/p>\n
appears       that      it       does    not   come    within       the<\/p>\n
purview of dowry as defined under Section 2 of<\/p>\n
Dowry Prohibition Act as it has been held in<\/p>\n
the decisions referred to above reported in<\/p>\n
1992(2) PLJR 560 and 1991(1) Cr. Law Journal<\/p>\n
639.<\/p>\n
                9.      Considering            the     facts        and<\/p>\n
circumstances of this case, in my opinion, the<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 7.7.2008 is not fit to be<\/p>\n
sustained. The impugned order is set aside.<\/p>\n
The order dated 8.11.2007 passed by learned<\/p>\n
Sub     Divisional           Judicial      Magistrate;         Araria<\/p>\n
in     complaint           case     no.    2138       of    2007     is<\/p>\n
restored, so far the cognizance under Section<\/p>\n
498 A I.P. C. is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
                            10.    In    the   result,   this   revision\n\n                  application is allowed.\n\n\nPatna High Court                        (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)\nDated 11th of August 2011\nN.A.F.R\/Kanchan\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.925 of 2008 Jarari Shams @ Nikki wife of Tarique Imran Daughter of Shamshad Hussain resident of Dehti, Police Station- Palasi, Dist.- Araria. …. Petitioner. Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-171659","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nJarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-21T02:36:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-21T02:36:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1534,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-21T02:36:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-21T02:36:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-21T02:36:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011"},"wordCount":1534,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011","name":"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-21T02:36:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarari-shams-nikki-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-11-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jarari Shams @ Nikki vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171659","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}