Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 622 (PAT)

Pashupati Nath v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-05

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. No one appears either on behalf of the petitioners or on behalf of opposite party no.2. However, Sri Pramanand Prasad appears on behalf of the State. 2. The present petition was filed against the order of cognizance dated 4.9.1998 passed by Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.187 (C) of 1998 for the offence under Sec.498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.187 (C) of 1998. The order of cognizance was passed on 4.9.1998 and thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 26.2.1999, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this Court had directed that pending hearing of the application in the admission matter, further proceedings as against the petitioners in Complaint Case No.187 (C) of 1998 pending before Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 30.7.1999, the petition was admitted. While admitting the case, this Court directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below as against petitioners shall remain stayed. It appears that after obtaining the order of stay, the petitioners have lost their interest in the present proceeding and due to that reason, no one has come forward either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners have come at a very initial stage of the proceeding and as such this Court may not interfere into the matter. 4. The petitioners in its petition, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as proceeding, have stated that time without number the opposite party no.2 had earlier filed cases before different authorities. The present petition, which has been initiated after filing of the protest petition by the complaint petition, appears to be malicious prosecution. 5. I have examined the impugned order as well as materials available on the record of the case. I am of the view that the matter relating to filing of earlier cases by opposite party no.2 can well be looked into by the court below at an appropriate stage. 5. I have examined the impugned order as well as materials available on the record of the case. I am of the view that the matter relating to filing of earlier cases by opposite party no.2 can well be looked into by the court below at an appropriate stage. This is not the stage where this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, will interfere into the matter or rather conduct roving enquiry. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition. However, if petitioners file petition before the court below at appropriate stage, it is expected that the concerned court will examine the same on its on merit without being prejudiced by this order. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.