IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8299 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-454 Year-2017 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== 1. Usha Devi and Ors Wife of jay Prakash Singh @ Jay Prakash Singh yadav Resident of Bhikhua, P.S- Fatuha, 2. Raj babbar @ Raj Babbar Kumar Son of Jay Prakash singh @ Jay Prakash Singh Yadav Resident of Bhikhua, P.S- Fatuha 3. Murti Kumari Daughter of Jay Prakash Singh @ Jay Prakash Singh Yadav Resident of Bhikhua, P.S- Fatuha 4. Jay Prakash Singh @ Jay Prakash Singh Yadav Son of late Pryag Singh Res- ident of Bhikhua, P.S- Fatuha 5. Bebi Devi Wife of Ramanand Yadav Resident of Co-Operative Clony , P.S- Kankarbagh 6. Ruby Devi Wife of Ram Pravesh Prasad @ Ram Pravesh Yadav Resident of Milki Murari, P.S- Karai Parsurai, 7. Ram Pravesh Prasad @ Ram Pravesh yadav Son of Late Hari Charan Singh Resident of Milki Murari, P.S0- Karai Parsurai ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Rubi Devi Wife of Santosh yadav R/o Bhikhua, P.S - Fatuha, Dist- Patna , presently resident of Ramadhin Road , Sahadra, P.S- Malsalami, Dist- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 21-04-2025 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to withdraw this application on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 (Usha Devi) and petitioner No. 4 ( Jay Prakash Singh) with liberty to raise the grounds at the time of framing of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8299 of 2019(3) dt.21-04-2025 2/5 charge. 2. It is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with respect to the petitioner No. 1 (Usha Devi) and petitioner No. 4 ( Jay Prakash Singh) with the liberty as prayed. Now, this application is confined only to petitioners No. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the S.D.J.M., Patna City whereby and whereunder he took cognizance against the petitioners in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 454 of 2017 for the of- fences punishable Sections 498(A)/341/323/307/504 of the In- dian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. The prosecution story in brief is that one Rubi Devi has given a written report before the SHO of Fatuha P.S. dated 17.10.2017 alleging therein that the informant was married with the co-accused Santosh Yadav on 27.05.2015. On the eve of marriage, the father of informant has spent Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) as he knows that Santosh Yadav is an Engineer in Railway. She further alleged that after marriage, she came to know that Santosh Yadav is a labour in company at Chenni. She lived at Bhikhua with her husband till 6 months after her mar- Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8299 of 2019(3) dt.21-04-2025 3/5 riage, thereafter her husband went to Chennai and he did not keep connection with her from there then she stated these inci- dents to her father, who gathered information that Santosh has extra marital relation with another lady. When the informant made protest then her husband and father-in-law Jay Prakash Singh Yadav had demanded a Swift Desire Car from the infor- mant and said if demand is not fulfilled then she would not be allowed to live with Santosh. Ornaments which was gifted in her marriage was given to Bebi Devi. Other named in-laws fam- ily members tortured her. Nandosi namely Ram Pravesh Yadav used to do bad act with the informant many times when she made protest then Rubi Devi runs for assault. Father-in-law also kept bad eye on the informant. Usha Devi always said that she would not allow living with her son and threatened to kill her. She further alleged that on 17.11.2017 in the morning all F.I.R named accused persons have assaulted the informant and said to kill her but anyhow she could save her life and reached the po- lice station where she called her father on phone. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the pe- titioners have been falsely implicated in this case only being they are the family members of the husband of the informant. The petitioner no. 2 is the bhaisur, petitioner no. 3 is the unmar- Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8299 of 2019(3) dt.21-04-2025 4/5 ried Nanad, petitioners No. 5 and 6 are married Nanad and peti- tioner No. 7 is Nandosi of the Informant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in fact, nothing has happened in the manner as alleged in the F.I.R. and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162. 9. I have considered the submissions of the parties and also perused the materials available on record including the F.I.R. 10. It appears that the petitioner no. 2 is the bhaisur, peti- tioner no. 3 is the unmarried Nanad, petitioners No. 5 and 6 are married Nanad and petitioner No. 7 is Nandosi of the informant and there are general and omnibus allegation against them. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts of this case and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Sonam and Ors (supra), this application is allowed. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8299 of 2019(3) dt.21-04-2025 5/5 the S.D.J.M., Patna City, Patna in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 454 of 2017 is quashed with respect to the petitioners only and will continue against all the accused persons in the in- terest of justice. Saif/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T