IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.52902 of 2008
1. Madhu Gupta, wife of Sri Rabindra Nath Gupta.
2. Rabindra Nath Gupta, son of Late Baidyanath Gupta.
Both resident of Mohalla-Saraiyaganj, P.S. Town
(Muzaffapur), District-Muzaffarpur.
.........................................................Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Manish Kumar, son of Sri Chandra Bhusan Prasad,
resident of Mohalla-Pankha Toli, P.S. Kazi
Mahmadpur, District-Muzaffarpur.
.............................................Opposite Parties.
----------------------------------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.
----------------------------------
O R D E R
6. 15.11.2011. This application, under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing the
order 9.9.2008 passed by the court of Sri S. Kaushar,
Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint
Case No.2845 of 2006/Trial No.2157 of 2008, summoning
the accused-petitioners, on inquiry under Section 202 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case
under Sections 323/448/504 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts, leading to this application, are
2
that the complainant-opposite party no.2, Manish Kumar,
filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case
No.2845 of 2006, against the six accused persons
including the petitioners, with the contention that he has
filed the Divorce Case, numbered as Matrimonial Case
No.133 of 2005 in the court of the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Muzaffarpur, on 9.8.2005. On knowing about the
said Matrimonial Case, all the accused persons including
the petitioners armed with lathi, danda and rod came at the
house of his father, who is a Senior Advocate, and started
to abuse showing the paper of divorce. At that time, his
father was doing the work behind the house after locking
the grill of the house. All the accused persons including
the petitioners entered into the house breaking the lock of
the grill and started to assault the complainant-opposite
party no.2. The accused-petitioner no.1, Madhu Gupta
and the accused-petitioner no.2, Rabindra Nath Gupta,
snatched the gold chain from the neck of the complainant-
opposite party no.2 and ordered to kill him. Thereafter, all
the accused persons including the petitioners started to
assault him again with an intention to kill. On raising
‘hulla’ to save, his father rushed there and tried to save
3
him but the accused-petitioner no.1, Madhu Gupta, also
assaulted his father through slipper and torn the cloth. It is
also alleged that the accused no.6, Md. Asfi, damaged the
television and threatened his father for dire consequences,
if the case will be lodged about the occurrence and,
thereafter, all the accused persons including the petitioners
fled away. At that time, the accused no.3, Sweety Gupta,
the wife of the complainant-opposite party no.2, Manish
Kumar, took away all her personal belongings. On the
next date, the matter was reported to the police but the
police refused to register the case.
3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint petition
by the complainant-opposite party no.2, Manish Kumar,
on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, out of six accused, named in the complaint
petition, the accused-petitioners, were summoned through
the impugned order dated 9.9.2008 finding the prima facie
case under Sections 323, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are none else but
the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant-
4
opposite party no.2, Manish Kumar and much prior to the
filing of the complaint petition by the complainant-
opposite party no.2, on the basis of the written report of
the accused-petitioner no.2, Rabindra Nath Gupta,
Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No.281 of 2005 was
instituted on 21.8.2005 under Sections 498(A) and 379 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act regarding the occurrence of torture and
harassment to his daughter, Sweety Gupta, named as
accused no.3 in the complaint petition, for demand of
dowry and removing her from the Sasural house after
snatching her personal belongings against the
complainant-opposite party no.2 and his parents. In that
case, the prayers for anticipatory bail of the complainant-
opposite party no.2, Manish Kumar, have been rejected
upto Hon’ble Supreme Court and due to that reason with
oblique motive, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, the father of the
complainant-opposite party no.2, who is Senior Advocate
in Civil Courts, Muzaffarpur, got filed the present
complaint case through the complainant-opposite party
no.2, so that the petitioners may not pursue the case of
Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No.281 of 2005 and also
5
could not create any hindrance to succeed in divorce case
as alleged in the complaint petition of the complainant-
opposite party no.2. It is also contended that from the
complaint petition itself, it is clear that regarding the
alleged occurrence of 16.8.2005, the present complaint
case has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2
on 26.12.2006, after about 16 months only to take defence
in Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No.281 of 2005, as lodged
for causing cruelty, harassment and removing the accused
no.3, Sweety Gupta, by the complainant-opposite party
no.2 and his family members on 15.8.2005 after snatching
her personal belongings.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State,
submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, has rightly
summoned the accused-petitioners on perusal of the
complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses as
examined in course of the inquiry and there is no illegality
in the impugned order for interference with the same at
this stage.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners are mother-in-law
and father-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no.2
and it is also apparent from the complaint petition that for
6
the occurrence alleged to be taken place on 16.8.2005, the
complaint case has been filed on 26.12.2006. The F.I.R.
of Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No.281 of 2005,
Annexure-‘2’ to this application, disclosed that the F.I.R.
has been lodged under Section 498(A) and 379 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act on the basis of the written report of the
petitioner no.2, Rabindra Nath Gupta, causing cruelty and
harassment of his daughter, Sweety Gupta, the accused
no.3 to the complaint petition, for demand of dowry and
also removing her from Sasural house after snatching her
personal belongings on 15.8.2005 by the complainant-
opposite party no.2 and his parents . It is also alleged in
the F.I.R. that on the next date, i.e., 16.8.2005, the
petitioner no.2, Rabindra Nath Gupta, approached the
complainant-opposite party no.2 and his parents to know
about he cause of removal of his daughter, Sweety Gupta,
on snatching her personal belongings. The complaint
petition filed on behalf of the complainant-opposite party
no.2 itself, disclosed about the filing of the divorce case by
him against his wife, Sweety Gupta, daughters of accused-
petitioners.
7
7. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be
exercised very sparingly in rare cases for quashing the
prosecution. In case of State of Haryana and others Vs.
Bhajan Lal and others {A.I.R. 1992 (SC) 604}, the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the power under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court of law
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised,
but noted the seven categories of cases wherein such
power should be exercised, out of which one is where a
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.
8. Admittedly, the petitioners are mother-in-law
and father-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no.2
8
and the petitioner no.2 has lodged the F.I.R. about causing
cruelty and harassment and removing his daughter, Sweety
Gupta, accused no.3 to the complaint petition, from her
sasural caused at the hands of the complainant-opposite
party no.2 and his parents. Prior to the filing of the
complaint petition, the divorce case is also filed by the
complainant-opposite party no.2 against his wife, Sweety
Gupta, daughter of the petitioners. In that situation, it is
quite improbable that the petitioners would go at the house
of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and would commit
the alleged offence, as detailed in the complaint petition.
As such, the complaint petition, filed by the complainant-
opposite party no.2, appears to be with oblique motive or
wreaking vengeance on the accused-petitioners.
9. Under the aforesaid facts and the
circumstances, the impugned summoning order dated
9.9.2008 passed by the court of Sri S. Kaushar, Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case
No.2845 of 2006/Trial No.2157 of 2008 appears to be an
abuse of the process of the court.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
9.9.2008 passed by the court of Sri S. Kaushar, Judicial
9
Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case
No.2845 of 2006/Trial No.2157 of 2008 is hereby
quashed and the application is allowed.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
P.S./A.F.R.