Patna High Court delivered 15 judgements on September 23, 2025 in Pinku Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., Mohsin Roman vs. The State of Bihar, Sumit Baitha vs. The State of Bihar, M/s Daksha Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company, Lakshman Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Rajeev Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Runa Kumari vs. The State of Bihar, Saryug Mukhiya vs. The State of Bihar, M/s Sonali Sari Showroom vs. The Indian Bank, Munni Kumari vs. The State of Bihar, Gaya Nath Ram vs. The State of Bihar, Indrasani Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Raj Kishore Lal Das vs. The State of Bihar, Ram Deo Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Tuliya Devi vs. The State of Bihar.
In Pinku Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., Patna High Court's Justice Purnendu Singh delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 23, 2025 disposing the quashing application. The judgment reads: "Accordingly, entire proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 991(C) of 2021 and also the cognizance order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2nd, Civil Court, Munger, are set aside and quashed." The Opposite Party No. 22 Ranju Kumari.
The High Court heard the application filed for quashing the order dated April 8, 2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2nd, Civil Court, Munger in Complaint Case no. 991(C) of 2021, by which cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 498(A), 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
The counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties informed the Court that a joint compromise petition dated April 16, 2025 for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed in Criminal Revision No. 607 of 2023 and the same was brought on record, which bore the signature of both petitioner and opposite party no. 2. The parties did not want to pursue the matrimonial suit and they withdrew their respective cases filed against each other.
The counsel submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 991(C) of 2021 was fit to be set aside and quashed in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 and Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653.
Justice Singh concluded: ''4. In view of the information that respective parties have withdrawn their cases lodged by them against each other and no case is pending before learned District Court, I find that in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as discussed hereinabove, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will be abuse of process of law.''
No comments:
Post a Comment