Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 764 (PAT)

Abu Horera v. State Of Bihar

2008-06-24

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2008
Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 20.8.2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnia, in Complaint Case No. CA 1465 of 2002 whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 406 I.P.C. as also the order dated 3.3.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Purnia, in Cr. Revision No. 310 of 2004 whereby he has dismissed the Cr. Revision against the order dated 20.8.2004. 2. One Bibi Zaheeda, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia stating that she had been married to the petitioner, Abu Horera some 17-18 years back and went to her sasural where the initial period of married life was spent in bliss. However, it is alleged that after the birth of a female child, she was subjected to torture and relegated to the position of a maid servant. She was also pressurized to bring Rs. 25, 000/- from her father for the marriage of the daughter. It is alleged that three years after her marriage, her husband, on receiving a hefty dowry contacted a second marriage with accused No. 2, Rehana, and ever since her torture increased in intensity. It is further alleged that after a panchavati, the husband was directed to provide the complainant-wife with a separate house and make provisions for her maintenance which was complied with by the husband and a few days later a son was born to her. It is also alleged that the husband often visited her in the new house and abused and assaulted her on the instigation of the second wife. It is alleged that eventually about a month back she with her children were ousted from the house after confiscating all her personal belongings. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was never married to Bibi Zaheeda and she in fact was married to one Sk. Sainul, son of Late Md. Abbas and as such the present complaint was not maintainable against him. It was submitted that before the revisional court various documents in support of the false plea of the complainant was filed to show that she was the legally wedded wife of Sk. Sainul, son of Late Md. Abbas and as such the present complaint was not maintainable against him. It was submitted that before the revisional court various documents in support of the false plea of the complainant was filed to show that she was the legally wedded wife of Sk. Sainul and the falsity of the claim of the complainant of her alleged marriage with the present petitioner some 17-18 years back but the revisional court ignored considering the same and dismissed the revision. 4. Assailing the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate and the Revisional Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on those very documents to prove the falsity of the complainants claim. 5. In the case of Mohd. Malek Mandod V/s. Bardalal reported in (2005) 10 SCC 608 , the Hon ble Apex Court has once again highlighted the principles for the purpose of exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings when and how such powers are to be used has been expended. Apparently, such powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution and circumspection and not in a manner to stifle legitimate prosecution. Such powers can only be exercised in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence and at that stage a detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence or quality of the defence case is not warranted. In that view of the matter, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be loath to look into or examine the documents filed by the petitioner. These are matters which are to be considered at the trial. 6. In the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V/s. Md. Sharaful Haque reported in 2005(1) PLJR (SC) 95 the Hon ble Apex Court observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not since that is the function of the trial judge. Their Lordships cautioned that this Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. 7. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate at the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has found a prima facie case to have been made out against the petitioner and the Revisional Court for cogent reasons has dismissed the revision. 7. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate at the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has found a prima facie case to have been made out against the petitioner and the Revisional Court for cogent reasons has dismissed the revision. In the face of the guidelines laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court this Court cannot question the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence or even examine the defence documents. 8. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.