1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)

CR. MISC. NO. OF 2024

In the matter of an Application under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA @ SASUR NARESH KUMAR

GUPTA, age about – 69 Years, Male, S/o Shri Paltu Sah, R/o

Near Bright Child School, New Vikas Nagar, P.S. - Loni,

P.O. - Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and

permanent address at Bharampur, P.S. – Vihpur, Dist. -

Bhagalpur.

2. AMARLATA DEVI @ SAAS AMARLATA DEVI, age about –

68 Years, Female, W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, R/o Near

Bright Child School, New Vikas Nagar, P.S. - Loni, P.O. -

Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and permanent

address at Bharampur, P.S. – Vihpur, Dist. - Bhagalpur.

3. MANSI KUMARI @ MANSI GUPTA @ NANAD MANSI

KUMARI, age about – 23 Years, Female, D/o Naresh Kumar

 2

Gupta, R/o Near Bright Child School, New Vikas Nagar,

P.S. - Loni, P.O. - Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

and permanent address at Bharampur, P.S. – Vihpur, Dist. -

Bhagalpur. ..… Petitioners

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. ARTI KUMARI, age about 25 years, Female, D/o

Ramchandra Sah, W/o Vishnu Kumar Gupta, R/o Ward

No.5, Vill- Makhachak, P.S. - Bakhri, Dist- Begusarai,

Bihar.

…… Opposite Parties

To,

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the Chief

Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and his fellow

Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition on behalf of the

petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the present application has been preferred by the

Petitioners invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon`ble

 3

Court as enshrined and embodied under section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as

‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside/quashing of the Order dated

10.06.2024 (hereinafter also referred as “Impugned Order

dated 10.06.2024”) passed by Learned Chanchal Kumar

Tiwari, Additional Session Judge – II, Begusarai

(hereinafter also referred as “Ld. Trail Court”) in Session

Trial No. 945 of 2023 arising out of Mahila P.S Case No. 18

of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the Ld. Trial Court has

erroneously and arbitrarily dismissed the discharge

application filed by the Petitioners.

2. That the Petitioners has not moved before this Hon'ble

Court earlier for same relief nor has filed any application for

any other relief of similar nature in connection with the said

Impugned Order dated 10.06.2024.

3. That the prosecution case, in brief, as alleged in the FIR are

as follows:

(a) That on 21.02.2021 the Opposite Party No. 2 got

married with Accused No. 1 Husband. In the marriage

the father of Opposite Party No. 2 gifted a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- into the Bank Account of Accused No. 1

 4

having account number 712010110006948 along with

5 (tola/bhar) of Gold Jewellery, 10 (bharitola) of Silver

Jewellery, Furniture, Electronic Appliances and 2 lakh

rupees cash;

(b) The Opposite Party No. 2 returned to her Parental

home after living in matrimonial house for five days

after the marriage. Following that, on 28.02.2021, her

Accused No.1 has taken Opposite Party No. 2 to his

new home situated at New Vikas Nagar, Loni ward no.

5, Gali no. 10, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, whereby, the

all Accused persons in the FIR abused her because they

were unhappy with the gifts they had received in the

marriage and wanted a four-wheel drive car and a 100

Gaj plot in Delhi. The Opposite Party No. 2 was locked

in a room, tortured, and denied food by the accused

persons when Opposite Party No. 2 refused to comply

with their in-laws' requests, Opposite Party No. 2 was

physically molested by the accused persons;

(c) On 03.06.2022 all the accused persons of the FIR tried

to kill Opposite Party No. 2 by tying towel on her neck

and when they Opposite Party No. 2 started to shout,

 5

the Neighbours came and rescued Opposite Party No.

2. Whereas, after the alleged incident Opposite Party

No. 2 called her brother named Dhiraj Kumar and her

in-laws tortured him and ask Opposite Party No. 2 to

leave Matrimonial House. Following the event, the

Opposite Party No. 2 returned to her paternal home in

Makhachak and lodged the present FIR.

That on the basis of written report of the Opposite Party No.

2, Mahila Police Station Begusarai registered the present

FIR being Mahila P.S Case No. 18 of 2022 dated

02.08.2022 for the alleged offence under sections 498A,

406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein, the Petitioner No. 1 has

been arrayed as Accused No. 2, Petitioner No. 2 has been

arrayed as Accused No. 3, and Petitioner No. 3 has been

arrayed as Accused No. 7.

A Certified Copy of Mahila P.S

Case No. 18 of 2022 has been

annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure – P/1.
 6

4. That initially, the present F.I.R was instituted under section

498A, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas, further the Investigation

Agency has submitted the Final form against the Petitioners

vide Charge Sheet No. 2 of 2023 dated 02.01.2023 under

sections 341, 323, 307, 498A, 354, 504 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

A Certified Copy of Charge Sheet

No. 2 of 2023 has been annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure

– P/2.

5. That the operating of the Impugned Order dated 10.06.2024

is being reproduced hereinbelow for the kind consideration

of this Hon’ble Court: –

“From perusal of the case record alongwith case

diary, it appears that petitioners are named in the FIR.

Witnesses at para no. 3,4,8,9 have taken the name of

these petitioners in alleged crime. At para no. 7 is the

place of occurrence. At para no. 23 is the supervision

note in which case found true against the petitioners.

At para no. 112 police has submitted charge sheet

 7

against the petitioners. Learned Magistrate found

sufficient material available against the petitioners

vide order dated 24.04.2023 took cognizance of

offence U/s 341/323 307/498(A)/354/504/34 of IPC &

3/4 of D.P. Act. There are sufficient materials

available against the petitioners in the case diary for

framing of charge. Accordingly, the discharge petition

of accused is hereby rejected”.

6. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioner No.

1 is the father-in-law, Petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law,

Petitioner No. 3 is Sister-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2.

7. That it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2

are ordinary law-abiding Senior citizens, whereas, the

Petitioner No. 3 is a student of Bachelor of Arts.

8. That the allegations have not been investigated properly as

the Petitioner No. 3 had appeared examination of

‘Education – Reflective Learning’ on dated 02.06.2022 at

09:00 A.M. at Bhim Rao Ambedker College, Delhi and it is

almost impossible to travel approx. 1500 KM to the alleged

place of incident and commit the crime.

 8

A Copy of Hall Ticket & Result

card has been annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure – P/3.

9. That under the present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2 has

alleged that on 03.06.2022, all the accused persons have

made an attempt to kill Opposite Party No. 2, and

meanwhile, the neighbours gathered thereby who upon the

request of the Opposite Party No. 2 called her brother

named Dheeraj who has come thereby and called

Emergency No. 112, whereas, the same are false and

concocted allegations. Since, the said call was made by the

Accused No. 1 named Vishnu Kumar Gupta and the

Petitioner No. 1, wherein Accused No. 1 has informed the

Police Personnel that brother of the Opposite Party No. 2

named Dheeraj along with two unknown persons had taken

Opposite Party No. 2 with them.

A Copy of Call details of

Emergency No. 112 dated

03.06.2022 has been annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure

– P/4.
 9

10. That in connection to the present FIR the Sub-Divisional

Police Officer has submitted Supervision Report vide Memo

No. 1231 dated 24.08.2022 (hereinafter also referred as

“Supervision Report”) in which the statement of Opposite

Party No. 2 was taken by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer

(hereinafter also referred as “SDPO”), wherein, the place of

incident has been alleged as Village Bhramarpur, Police

Station- Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur. Whereas, in the

Fardbeyan under the present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2

has alleged place of incident as Loni, Ghaziabad, moreover,

under very first complaint made by Opposite Party No. 2 in

Loni, Ghaziabad, the above incident has not been mentioned

anywhere. Furthermore, under the present FIR the Opposite

Party No. 2 has told that she called her brother Dheeraj after

the incident, whereas, in the report of the SDPO, her brother

Gaurav has been told to inform on 112.

A Copy of Memo No. 1231 dated

24.08.2022 has been annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure

– P/5.
 10

11. That under the said Supervision Report the statement of

witness Gaurav Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chandra Shah, was

taken under which the incident has been alleged as Village –

Bhramarpur, Police Station Bihpur, District Bhagalpur,

whereas, the Opposite Party No. 2, has alleged the place of

incident as Loni Ghaziabad under the present FIR, whereas,

in the very first complaint given by the Opposite Party No. 2

in Loni police station, there is no mention of the above

incident. Furthermore, under the present FIR the Opposite

Party No. 2 has alleged that her brother named Dheeraj

called 112, whereas, under the Supervision Report, it has

been alleged that her brother named Gaurav had informed to

police on 112.

12. That under the Supervision Report, the Statement of witness

Santosh Kumar S/o Vishwanath Shah, was taken by the

SDPO in which the incident has been alleged as Village –

Bhramarpur, P.S. Bihpur, Dist. – Bhagalpur. Whereas,

under the present FIR, the place of incident has been alleged

as Loni Ghaziabad by Opposite Party No. 2, furthermore,

under the first complaint given by Opposite Party No. 2 in

 11

the Loni P.S., Ghaziabad, the alleged incident has not been

mentioned at all.

13. That under the present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2 has

alleged that she had called her brother named Dheeraj after

the alleged incident, whereas, under the Supervision Report,

it has been alleged by the Opposite Party No. 2 that her

brother named Gaurav had informed on 112.

14. That the Petitioners have been alleged of attempt to murder,

harassment and assault by the Opposite Party No. 2,

whereas, it is pertinent to note herein that neither any

evidence of injury has been taken on record or produced by

the Opposite party No. 2, nor any wound examination has

been done till date.

15. That the Investigating Officer of the present FIR has

submitted Letter dated 10.01.2023 before the Ld. Trail

Court, wherein, it has been mentioned that there is no injury

report/evidence has been given by the Opposite Party No. 2.

A Copy of Letter dated 10.01.2023

has been annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure – P/6.

 12

16. That prior to lodging the present FIR the Opposite Party No.

2 has filed a Complaint on 13.06.2022 at Loni P.S.,

Ghaziabad (hereinafter also referred as “Complaint dated

13.06.2022”).

A Copy of Complaint dated

13.06.2022 has been annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure

– P/7.

17. That the above-mentioned Complaint dated 13.06.2022 was

transferred to the Family Counseling Center Ghaziabad on

13.06.2022, whereby, 01.07.2022 was fixed to call the other

party and thereafter hearing was scheduled on 22.07.2022

on which the Opposite Party No. 2 was not present,

whereas, the Accused No. 1 named Vishnu Kumar Gupta

i.e., Husband was present. Further, on 12.08.2022 the next

hearing date was fixed on which Opposite Party No. 2 again

remained absent, whereas, then the official of Family

Counseling Center contacted the Opposite Party No. 2 on

her Mobile No. and upon the consent of the Opposite Party

No. 2 said complaint was closed/disposed vide Order dated

12.08.2022.
 13

A Copy of Order dated 12.08.2022

has been annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure – P/8.

18. That under the present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2 has

made allegations of assault, harassment, and making an

attempt to kill her on all the accused persons. The above

incident is alleged to have happened at Loni, Ghaziabad but

on the other hand during the course of the investigation the

IO has recorded the statement of the Opposite Party No. 2

that the place of incident as Village – Bhramarpur P.S.

Bihpur, District – Bhagalpur.

19. That under the Supervision Report the statement of

Opposite Party No. 2 was recorded under which the place of

incident has been alleged as Village Bhramarpur Police

Station Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar. Whereas, under

the Fardbeyan given by Opposite Party No. 2 in the present

FIR, the place of incident has been alleged as Loni

Ghaziabad, furthermore, under the said Complaint dated

13.06.2022, the above incident has not been mentioned at

all.
 14

20. That under the Fardbeyan given by Opposite Party No. 2 in

the present FIR, it has been alleged that the Opposite Party

No. 2 had called his brother named Dheeraj, while in the

Supervision Report, it has been averted that her brother

Gaurav called PCR on 112.

21. That under the Supervision Report the statements of

witnesses namely (i) Gaurav Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chandra

Shah, (ii) Kajal Devi. W/o Shri Ram Chandra Shah, (iii)

Santosh Kumar, S/o Shri Vishwanath Shah, were taken by

the SDPO in which the incident was reported at Village

Bhramarpur Police Station - Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur,

Bihar, whereas, under the Fardbeyan given by Opposite

Party No. 2 in the present FIR, the place of incident has

been shown as Loni, Ghaziabad and in the first complaint

i.e., said Complaint dated 13.06.2022 given at P.S. Loni,

Ghaziabad, nothing related to the same was mentioned.

22. That the Petitioners reside with their family at a different

address from the Opposite Party No. 2 and all the

allegations made by the Opposite Party No. 2 are false and

baseless and the allegations have been made just to harass

the accused persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

 15

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar

and Others (2022) 6 SCC 599 has considered the quashing

of the FIR when the allegations are general and omnibus in

nature and no specific details as to how and when the

complainant was subjected to harassment for dowry by the

husband or his family members.

23. That in the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in

Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., ( 2014 ) 8 SCC

273 it was also observed: -

"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial

disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is

greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was

introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of

harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and

his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a

cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious

place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as

weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The

simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his

relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number

of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers

 16

of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades

are arrested."

24. Further, in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand &

Anr., ( 2010 ) 7 SCC 667 it has also been observed:-

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of

these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the

heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper

deliberations. We come across a large number of such

complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed

with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in

the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are

also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous

social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the

social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished.

They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small

incidents should not be reflected in the criminal

complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on

their advice or with their concurrence. The learned

members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession

must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every

 17

complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem

and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in

arriving at an amicable resolution of that human

problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of

their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and

tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of

the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not

lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint

the implications and consequences are not properly

visualized by the complainant that such complaint can

lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to

the complainant, accused and his close relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth

and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find

out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these

complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all

his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times,

even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to

ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely

careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and

 18

must take pragmatic realities into consideration while

dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of

harassment of husband's close relations who had been

living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited

the place where the complainant resided would have an

entirely different complexion. The allegations of the

complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care

and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal

trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the

relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of

common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant

if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain

in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of

amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering

is extremely long and painful."

25. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr., ( 2012 )

10 SCC 741 it was observed:-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an

apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of

G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3

 19

SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this

Court had held that the High Court should have quashed

the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute

wherein all family members had been roped into the

matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.

Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely

agree that:-

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in

recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main

purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle

down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial

skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious

proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders

of the family are also involved with the result that those

who could have counselled and brought about

rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being

arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many

reasons which need not be mentioned here for not

encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties

may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes

amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out

 20

in a court of law where it takes years and years to

conclude and in that process the parties lose their

"young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the

courts would not encourage such disputes."

26. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana

(2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that: –

"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against

the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial

disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband

should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus

allegations unless specific instances of their involvement

in the crime are made out."

27. That there is no positive evidence against the Petitioners in

the present charge sheet and also no prima facie case is

made out against the Petitioners.

28. That the Opposite Party No. 2 has levied allegations upon

Petitioners of assault, causing harassment and attempt to

murder but neither any evidence related to injury has been

ever submitted by the Opposite Party No. 2 nor the same has

been surfaced during the course of Investigation and as such

 21

no offence can be attributed upon the Petitioners, thus no

prima facia case is made out against the Petitioners.

29. That the Petitioners have never demanded dowry from

Opposite Party No. 2, nor did they ever molest, nor did they

ever try to kill her, nor has any incident as alleged has ever

taken place, the Petitioners have been falsely implicated by

the Opposite Party No. 2 and her family.

30. That the Petitioners live at a different address from the

Opposite Party No. 2 and all the allegations made by

Opposite Party No. 2 are false and baseless and have been

made to harass the accused and the process of law has been

misused by Opposite Party No. 2.

31. That the present FIR was lodged by the Opposite Party No.

2 in connivance with her family members with an intention

of causing trouble in a premeditated manner to the

Petitioners. The Petitioners have not committed any crime

against the Opposite Party No. 2. That Opposite Party No. 2

in connivance with her family members has falsely

implicated the Petitioners under the present FIR and no

specific allegations has been levied against the Petitioners.

 22

32. That it is most respectfully submitted that the allegation of

giving cash or costly articles as well as demand of dowry is

wrong, false and baseless and the same has been made with

oblique motive just to undue pressurize the Husband i.e.,

Accused No. 1 of the instant F.I.R.

33. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Police

Officer was duty bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry

before registering the FIR as this instant case falls within the

categories of cases on which a preliminary enquiry may be

made, as mandated by the Hon`ble Apex Court in Lalita

Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1.

34. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioner(s)

has not done any act which falls under the ambit of the

alleged sections, moreover, the essential ingredients to make

out offence under the imposed section lacks under the

present matter.

35. That it is further humbly contented that the facts of this

case, upon a perusal of the contents of the instant FIR, it

would be manifest that general allegation are levied against

the Petitioner(s). The Opposite Party No. 2 at instance

alleged that Petitioner(s) harassed her mentally and

 23

physically and further demanded dowry from her. Whereas,

no specific and distinct allegations have been made against

either of the Petitioner(s) herein, i.e., none of the

Petitioner(s) have been attributed any specific role in

furtherance of the general allegations made against them.

This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to

ascertain the role played by each Petitioner in furtherance of

the offence. The allegations are therefore general and

omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on

account of small skirmishes, therefore may be do not

warrant prosecution.

36. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that the

Hon`ble Apex Court has at numerous instances expressed

concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the

increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband

in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term

ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the

accused.

37. That in case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan

Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604, Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C could

 24

be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any

Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and cases

wherein the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously

instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on

the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and

personal grudge.

38. That the above referred documents and contentions of

unimpeachable character and sterling quality, if juxtaposed

with the present case, would make it clear that no prima

facie case has been made out against the present

petitioner(s) as alleged.

39. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the allegations

made against the Petitioner(s) herein were omnibus in

nature. Further, it is submitted that the FIR in question has

been made with a revengeful intent, merely to harass the

Accused No. 1 (i.e., husband of the Opposite Party No. 2)

in-laws herein, and should be dealt with accordingly and for

the same the Petitioner(s) relies on Social Action Forum for

Manav Adhikar & Anr. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of

Law and Justice & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 443.

 25

40. That it is most respectfully submitted that if the Impugned

Order dated 10.06.2024 passed by Ld. Trail Court in

Session Trial No. 945 of 2023, is not set aside, it would

amount to miscarriage of justice to the Petitioners.

41. That the Petitioners has no other alternative remedy except

to move before this Hon’ble Court by way of filling this

instant application.

42. That it is most respectfully submitted that the allegations

have been made with oblique motive and are not bona-fide.

It is in the interest of justice to set aside the Impugned Order

dated 10.06.2024, passed by the Ld. Trail Court in Session

Trial No. 945 of 2023 arising out of Begusarai Mahila P.S

Case No. 18 of 2022.

It is therefore, prayed that Your

Lordships may graciously be pleased to

admit this application and pleased to set

aside the Impugned Order dated

10.06.2024 passed by Additional

Session Judge – II, Begusarai in Session

Trial No. 945 of 2023 out of Mahila P.S

Case No. 18 of 2022 arising and/or

 26

allow the Discharge Application filed

by the Petitioners;

AND/OR

Pass interim order staying the

proceeding of Session Trial No. 945 of

2023 arising out of Mahila P.S Case No.

18 of 2022 pending in the court of

Additional Session Judge – II,

Begusarai;

AND/OR

Pass such other order or orders Your

Lordships may deem fit and proper

under the facts and circumstances of

this case.

And for this the Petitioners shall ever pray.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)

CR. MISC. NO. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

 27

NARESH KUMAR GUPTA @ SASUR NARESH KUMAR GUPTA

& ORS. ……
PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. …… OPPOSITE

PARTIES

SUBJECT: QUASHING OF
INDEX

S. No. PARTICULARS PG. NO.

1. An application under section 482 of the 1 – 27

Code of Criminal Procedure along with
affidavit

2. Annexure – P/1: A Certified Copy of 28 – 33

Mahila P.S Case No. 18 of 2022

3. Annexure – P/2: A Certified Copy of 34 – 43

Charge Sheet No. 2 of 2023

4. Annexure – P/3: A Copy of Hall Ticket 44 – 45

& Result card

5. Annexure – P/4: A Copy of Call details 46 – 48

of Emergency No. 112 dated 03.06.2022

6. Annexure – P/5: A Copy of Memo No. 49 – 54

 28

1231 dated 24.08.2022

7. Annexure – P/6: A Copy of Letter 55

dated 10.01.2023

8. Annexure – P/7: A Copy of Complaint 56 – 61

dated 13.06.2022

9. Annexure – P/8: A Copy of Order dated 62

12.08.2022

10. Impugned Order dated 10.06.2024

11. Vakalatnama