IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.39150 of 2007
1. MOST MEERA DEVI @ SUBHASH KUWER WIFE OF LATE DHRU
NARAYAN PATEL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA LASKARIGANJ BANDH,
P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS.
2. BIKRAM PATEL SON OF DHRU NARAYAN PATEL
3. OM PRAKASH PATEL @ MATHURI
4. DHIRAJ KUMAR PATEL
BOTH SONS OF LATE DHRU NARAYAN PATEL. ALL RESIDENT OF
MOHALLA BADAKI KARPURWA, P.S. SASARAM (N), DISTRICT
ROHTAS. AT PRESENT + ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SAGARPER
(ALAMGANJ MORE) P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS.
5. RAM BALI PRASAD SON OF LATE BAL GOBIND PRASAD, RESIDENT
OF MOHALLA LASKARIGANJ BANDH, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT
ROHTAS. AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KEDARPUR, P.S.
BELAGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA.
... ... PETITIONERS.
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. RUBI DEVI WIFE OF RAVI PATEL
3. RAVI PATEL SON OF LATE DHRU NARAYAN PATEL. BOTH
RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BADAKI KARPURWA, P.S. SASARAM(N),
DISTRICT ROHTAS., AT PRESENT ADDRESS:- C/O MASMAT
GUDIYA DEVI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PURVI MOHAN BIGHA,
P.S. DIHARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS.
... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES.
-----------
11. 22.11.2010. Heard Shri Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The present petition has been filed for
quashing of an order dated 18.7.2005 passed by the
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in
Complaint Case No.125 of 2004. By the said order,
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
I have perused the complaint petition as
well as the impugned order. Learned counsel for the
2
petitioners, while challenging the impugned order,
has submitted that so far as petitioner no.5 is
concerned, even in the complaint petition, it was
categorically stated that he was not at all related
to the in-laws family of the complainant and as
such no proceeding can be initiated against
petitioner no.5 under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
also referred to number of documents enclosed with
the present petition to show that the present
petition was filed maliciously.
I have perused the impugned order and the
materials on record. So far as deciding the present
case, it is not advisable for this Court to examine
the documents, which have been brought on record by
the petitioners at this stage. Those materials are
required to be examined by the concerned court at
appropriate stage. So far as petitioner no.5 is
concerned, since the complainant herself had
admitted that petitioner no.5 was not relative of
her in-laws family, the court is of the opinion
that the prosecution against the petitioner no.5
may not proceed. Moreover, in the complaint
petition, no specific allegation has been made
against the petitioner no.5, who was arrayed as
Accused No.6 in the complaint petition.
3
Accordingly, so far as petitioner no.5 is
concerned, order of cognizance is set aside. In
respect of other accused persons, the court is of
the opinion that other petitioners have not made
out an exceptional case warranting exercise of
inherent power in their favour.
Accordingly, the petition in respect of
petitioner nos.1 to 4 stands rejected. It is made
clear that this order may not prejudice the court
below at any subsequent stage.
Accordingly, the petition is partly
allowed.
In view of rejection of this petition,
interim order of stay stands automatically vacated.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the
court below forthwith.
( Rakesh Kumar,J.)
N.H./