Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34817 (PAT)

Amit Sinha and Ors v. State Of Bihar and Anr

CR. MISC./32054/2018 · 2026-02-12

Sunil Dutta Mishra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32054 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-638 Year-2012 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District- Patna ====================================================== 1. Amit Sinha S/o Late Ramjee Prasad Sinha, R/o Block 29, Gali 14, Dev Nagar , P.S.- Karolbagh, New Delhi-110005. 2. Kalawati Devi W/o Late Ramjee Prasad Sinha, R/o Maa Mundeshwari Place, Raghunath Tola, Block No.-B, Flat No.304, Anishabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt.- Patna-800002. 3. Manish Sinha S/o Late Ramjee Prasad Sinha, R/o R/o Maa Mundeshwari Place, Raghunath Tola, Block No. -B, Flat No.304, Anishabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt.- Patna-800002. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sangita Kumari @ Bunty W/o Amit Sinha, D/o Surendra Prasad, R/o House No. JKS D/19, Baidnath Mahto Marg, Old Jakanpur, P.S.- Jakanpur, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 5 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.04.2018 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 638(C) of 2012, whereby and whereunder the Court concerned took cognizance under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32054 of 2018(5) dt.12-02-2026 2/2 and their application for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since both the parties have compromised the case, therefore, this case may be disposed. 4. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, this case stands disposed of. 5. Interim order, if any, stands disposed of. utkarsh/- (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) U T