Showing posts with label Section ¾. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Section ¾. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Justice Ansul quashes order of 2020 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in a matter of new FIR post settlement of dispute relating to dowry, marriage

In Ashok Kumar Choubey @ Ashok Choubey & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Ansul delivered a 4-page long judgement dated May 27, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "7. In view of the matter that the dispute relating to dowry and marriage was settled between the parties and the new FIR relates to allegation of molestation and continuance of this prosecution is bad in law, malafide and abuse of the process of the Court. The FIR lodged at Delhi is continuing and the same may be taken to its logical conclusion. In view thereof, order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna (In-charge) in Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018 is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the application stands allowed." The judgement was reserved on March 18, 2026 upon hearing the parties. Prior to Justivce Ansul the case was heard by Justices Prabhat Kumar Singh, Partha Sarthy, Sandeep Kumar and Soni Shrivastava. 

Notably, Justice Sandeep Kumar had stayed the proceedings of the trial court by his order dated March 27, 2025 during pendency of the application. The case was filed in the High Court on January 24, 2022 and registered on February 4, 2022 in the matter arising out of P.S.case dated July 28, 2018.

The application was filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated September 14, 2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna (In-charge) in Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Court has taken cognizance under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution case was that the informant alleged that marriage of her daughter was fixed between respective parents Ashok Kumar Choubey (petitioner no. 1) and Om Prakash Tiwari. Ring Ceremony was held at Delhi at the residence of Petitioner no. 1. On May 12, 2018, Petitioner no 1 visited Patna and informant’s husband gave Rs. 6 lakhs cash to him. On June 15, 2018 informant and her husband visited at the residence of Petitioner no. 1 where the petitioners demanded Rs. 10 lakh cash and one Honda City Car. Thereafter, marriage was cancelled on July 21, 2018. Later the marriage was attempted to be settled but due to unavoidable issues the marriage negotiations broke down. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties had gathered before the SHO, Rajendra Nagar on July 22, 2018 i.e. the petitioner no. 1, the proposed bridegroom and father of the bride. Both the parties gave a letter to the SHO claiming that they have decided not to get the marriage ceremony conducted and they have returned the goods of each other and they have no complaint against each other. Moreover, the girl an filed FIR in the Rajendra Nagar (New Delhi) Police Station. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that police submitted final form in this case bearing final report dated October 31, 2019 stating that the case was found to be false. However, magistrate differing with the final form took cognizance under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Justice Ansul observed: "The crux of the allegation is that a marriage negotiation went bad. Even though some gadgets or money were exchanged but there is a document clearly showing that the parties returned their gifts and settled their dispute amicably. Still the instant case was filed and thereafter the daughter of the informant filed Central Delhi Rajendra Nagar P.S. Case No. 182 of 2018 on 19.09.2018. The lady in the FIR has not stated that the document signed by the parties on 22.07.2018 was either forged or obtained by any wrongful means. She has plainly written about the same and then has stated that she wishes to lodge the FIR in view of the later development." 

 



Wednesday, March 19, 2025

Supreme Court grants relief to Soni Kumari in a case of dowry death

In Soni Kumari @ Menka Kumari vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner who was apprehending her arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioner along with other accused persons are accused of killing the daughter of Ashok Kumar Jha, the informant. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that the petitioner is the sister of the husband of the deceased. He submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. APP for the State and opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner was also involved in the case and investigation is going on. The order reads: "I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, her prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected..."

The case is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danapur. The case arose from Sahpur Thana in Patna district. The bail application was filed in the High Court on August 17, 2024.

A special leave to appeal (criminal) has been filed in the Supreme Court on January 8, 2025 and registered on January 17, 2025 against High Court's order dated December 5, 2024. On January 24, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K.V. Viswanathan passed an order saying, "no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner" who is a resident of Mithapur, Jakkanpur, Patna.