✦ Patna High Court · 17 Dec 2012

Praveen Kumar Verma v. Patarhi, P.O. – Kirhindi, P.S. – Sheosagar, District – Rohtas

PATNA HIGH COURT CR.MISC No. 18990 of 2013AKHILESH CHANDRA3 min read

Case at a glance

Judgment

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL ORDER .... .... Opposite Party 4 25-11-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences under Sections 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner is one of the named accused in this complaint case being husband of the complainant with allegation of different demand and torture etc. in spite of being blessed with two female children. Submission is of false implication under some confusion and the complainant opposite party no. 2 though initially had filed matrimonial case no. 238 of 2010 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but ultimately got the same dismissed for non-prosecution on 17th December 2012. Under Patna High Court Cr.Misc.

No.18990 of 2013 (4) dt.25-11-2013 compelling circumstances petitioner had file another matrimonial case under section 13 of the said Act, but in spite of all odds petitioner is ready to resume and continue matrimonial relationship with the complainant opposite party no. 2 who is his one and only wife and mother of two children born out of the wedlock. There is positive response on behalf of the complainant opposite party no. 2. In view of the above, in the event of petitioner filing duly verified petition supported with personal affidavit before the court below, clearly stating all such intention as stated above or parties files joint petition of compromise, clearly stating all such intention, in the event of his arrest/surrender within four weeks, let the above named petitioner be enlarge on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Complaint Case No.

645 of 2012 (Tr. No. 3843/2012), subject to condition lad down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition to attend the court regularly till disposal of the case and in case of failure on two consecutive dates or any violation of undertaking, without giving any reasonable explanation, the privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18990 of 2013 (4) dt.25-11-2013 Further, additional condition is that in the event of filing individual petition on behalf of the petitioner, the court below on getting positive response from the complainant opposite party no. 2 or filing joint petition of compromise by the parties, permit the couple to reside at their place of choice on the condition to report personally to the court below on the dates fixed for the purpose and only after being satisfied of their conduct for a reasonable period, the court below shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Rajeev/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 323, 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 9; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Patna High Court, on 17 Dec 2012. The bench was AKHILESH CHANDRA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Patna High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. PATNA HIGH COURT CR.MISC No. 18990 of 2013). ← Search more judgments