Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1068 (PAT)

Tarak Nath v. State of Bihar

2004-10-04

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. 2. S.K. Puri P.S. Case No.10 of 2002 came to be instituted on 5.2.2002. Cognizance having been taken under Sections 313, 498A, 323, 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner who is the husband has approached this Court for quashing of the same. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were married in 1989 and the present case came to be instituted in the year 2002. It is belated and is in retaliation to Matrimonial Suit No. 11 of 2002 filed by the petitioner earlier. The present prosecution is malicious in nature. All the allegations primarily related to the period between 1989 to 1999. This Court should therefore in exercise of inherent powers quash the order of cognizance. 4. Learned Counsel for the informant submits that the allegations in the First Information Report clearly constitute an offence and whether the institution of the case was belated sufficient explanation for the same be there or not, are matters to be considered in the trial. The allegations clearly constitute materials which could be considered and adjudicated in a regular trial. 5. The law with regard to interference with a criminal prosecution at the very inception in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure stands well settled. Interference would be called for if the allegations do not constitute an offence prima facie, is malicious in nature. These would be the primary considerations in the facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court finds that the allegations clearly constitute an offence under Sections 498A and 323 of the Penal Code as also Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and is fit to go to trial for the correctness of the same. The fact that the complaint may be alleged to be belated in nature and thus malicious is a matter to be considered in all its aspects during trial. From the allegations In the complaint, on the face of it this Court is satisfied that no offence under Section 307 or 313 of the Penal Code is disclosed as to be the subject of a regular trial. From the allegations In the complaint, on the face of it this Court is satisfied that no offence under Section 307 or 313 of the Penal Code is disclosed as to be the subject of a regular trial. The order of cognizance is therefore quashed in so far as Sections 307 and 313 of the Penal Code be concerned. 6. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. The trial of the petitioner shall continue in accordance with law in so far as Section 498A and Section 323 of the Penal Code be concerned.