IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.41111 of 2009
1. Rajeshwar Nath Sinha @ Ranjanjee son of
Late Yogeshwar Sharan @ Nagina Lal
2. Ganeshar Nath Sinha @ Niranjanjee son of
Late Yogeshwar Sharan @ Nagina Lal
Both are resident of "Chiranjivi House" Mohalla Indrapuri
Road no.1, Ratu Raod, P.S. Sukhdev Nagar
Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand)
Applicants
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Smt. Nisha Prakash wife of Ashish Prakash
resident of Mohalla Indrapuri Road no.1,Ratu Road
"Chiranjivi House" P.S. Sukhdev Nagar Dist. Ranchi
At present C/o Raman Kishore Sinha, 2, Telegraph Colony
Kidwaipuri P.S. Buddha Colony Dist. Patna
-----------
For the applicants: M/s Dhrub Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Abhishek, Advocate
For the State: Mr Rajeshwar Nath Sinha, Advocate
For opposite party no.2: M/s Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Manish Kumar, Advocate
Lakshmi Kant Sharma, Advocate
——–
03/ 25.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned
counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.
Original record of this court has been eaten away by white ant
and as per direction the parties furnished photo state copy of the original
record and accordingly, record was reconstructed.
This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Cr. P.C
for quashing the order dated 18.6.2007 passed by the learned Sub
divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in Complaint case
no.352/2007 corresponding to Trial no.681/2009 by which and
whereunder he having found prima facie case under sections 323, 498A
of the IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants
and other accused ordered to issue process against the applicants as well
as other accused to procure their attendance for facing trial.
2
Opposite party no.2 filed complaint case bearing Complaint
case no. 352/2007 against the applicants and five other co-accused
persons and enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C was made in
respect of allegation levelled in complaint petition and having
conducted enquiry prima facie case under sections 323, 498A of the IPC
was found against the applicants and five rest accused persons and
accordingly, learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad
passed order dated 18.6.2007 in the manner as stated above.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants
have been made accused nos. 6 and 7 in the complaint petition and, as a
matter of fact, they are uncles of husband of opposite party no.2 and
they reside separately from the husband of opposite party no.2 and
furthermore, no specific overt-act has been attributed against them. It is
further contended by him that husband of opposite party no.2 earlier
filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right and after filing of the suit
opposite party no.2 brought above stated complaint case and
subsequently, aforesaid suit for restitution of conjugal right was
withdrawn by the husband of opposite party no.2 as she was not ready
to lead her conjugal life. It is further contended by him that after
withdrawal of the aforesaid suit, the husband of opposite party no.2
filed a suit for divorce in which a decree for judicial separation was
granted which is annexure 6 of this petition. It is further contended by
him that even after passing of the decree of judicial separation, opposite
party no.2 did not turn up and never came at her matrimonial home and,
thereafter, after expiry of statutory period, the husband of opposite party
3
no.2 filed Matrimonial Title Suit no. 72/2010 for divorce and the
aforesaid suit was decreed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi
vide judgment dated 21.6.2010.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite
party no.2 supported the order under challenge and submitted that if the
petitioners have any grievance, they may raise the same at the time of
framing of the charge.
Having heard rival contentions of both the parties I have gone
through the record. It is an admitted position that the applicants are
uncles of the husband of opposite party no.2 and from perusal of the
contents of complaint petition which is annexure 1 of this petition it
would appear that no specific overt-act has been attributed against the
applicants. It is well known that section 498A of the IPC has been
enacted to check the dowry related offences but it is seen that now a
days, it has become fashion to implicate almost all in -laws including
grand father, grand mother and even minor children of the family of
groom.
In the present case, although there is some sort of allegation
against in-laws of the husband of opposite party no.2 but it would
appear from complaint petition that opposite party no.2 has not even
whispered even a single word against the applicants. Therefore, in my
view, the prosecution of the applicants is nothing but only an abuse of
the process of law. Therefore, I think it proper to exercise the power
vested in this court under section 482 of the Cr. P.C.
On the basis of aforesaid discussions, impugned order dated
4
18.6.2007 is, hereby, quashed in respect of the applicants only.
It is made clear that the findings/ observations given by this
court in this order shall not affect the case of the rest accused of
Complaint case no. 352/2007.
Accordingly, this application stands disposed off on
admission stage itself.
Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)