Patna High Court
Raunak Ranjan @ Murari Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 3 March, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67877 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-614 Year-2020 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
Raunak Ranjan @ Murari Kumar Son Of Birendra Prasad Singh Resident Of
Village - Khamahar, P.S. - Muffasil District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari Wife Of Murari Kumar @ Raunak Ranjan Resident Of
Village -Khamahar, Satbhaiya Tola, P.S. - Muffasil, District - Begusarai, At
Present Residing At D/O. Nagendra Singh, Village -Pachamba, Tin Kutti
Tola, Ward No.17, P.S. - Muffasil (Singhaul O.P.), District - Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Pritish Kr. Lal, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
2. Present petition for quashing preferred
against impugned order dated 18.03.2021, passed by
learned Sub-Judge VII cum A.C.J.M. VI, Begusarai,
arising out of Complaint Case No. 614(C) of 2020,
whereby learned trial court took cognizance against the
petitioner under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. While challenging the aforesaid order,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67877 of 2023 dt.03-03-2025
learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon legal report
of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through
Digambar and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and
Anr. reported in 2024 SC OnLine SC 3836.
4. Challenging the cognizance order, learned
counsel for the petitioner mainly raised two issues. Firstly,
that the cognizance order is hit by provisions of limitation
act available under Section 468 sub-section 2 of the
Cr.P.C. as occurrence is of 2015 whereby the present
complaint was filed in 2020 and secondly, that no specific
allegation qua cruelty was raised against this petitioner
though complaint petition. Besides aforesaid, it is
submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner never
married O.P. No. 2.
5. Taking a contrary note, learned counsel for
O.P. No. 2 submitted that the learned counsel for the
petitioner by way of his submission disputing the core
factual aspects of this case that the marriage between the
parties never solemnized, which can be ascertained only
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67877 of 2023 dt.03-03-2025
by way of trial. It is also submitted that the nature of
allegation, whether it is general or omnibus or even the
limitations issue cannot be ascertained through quashing
petition.
6. Considering aforesaid, as the learned counsel
for the petitioner is disputing the core issue qua marriage
between the parties by denying it which can ascertained
only by way of trial.
7. Accordingly, the present quashing petition
appears devoid of any merit and as such same stands
dismissed.
8. Let copy of this order be sent to the learned
trial court, without delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.03.2025
Transmission Date 04.03.2025
