Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2512 (PAT)

Bibi Hasrat @ Hasrat v. State of Bihar

2011-12-19

JYOTI SARAN

body2011
ORDER Heard Dr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.12.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in a case arising from Kotwali (Tetarpur) P.S. Case No. 711 of 2005 for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The case has been instituted at the instance of the opposite party no. 2 against her husband and other family members. The petitioner happens to be the maternal sister-in-law of the informant opposite party no. 2. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that she being a minor and nowhere connected with the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. her involvement in the present proceeding is mala fide and the continuance of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court. It is further the case of the petitioner that the court below considering this aspect that the petitioner was a minor, has segregated her case from the others and which is now pending consideration before the Juvenile Justice Board. It is the matter of record that the charges against the accused persons other than the present petitioner having been found true they were held guilty of having committed offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the learned S.D.J.M. in G.R. No. 2950 of 2005 vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2008. The accused persons other than the petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and order giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2009 / 6 of 2009 and which has since been allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. I, Bhagalpur vide judgment and order dated 07.12.2010 placed at Annexure-2 series to the Supplementary Affidavit filed today and the accused persons have been acquitted of all the charges. It is the further contention of the petitioner that subsequently with the consent of the parties divorce has been granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur to the complainant and her husband Dr. Shahid Imam. Copy of the order is placed at Annexure-3 to the Supplementary Affidavit. It is the further contention of the petitioner that subsequently with the consent of the parties divorce has been granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur to the complainant and her husband Dr. Shahid Imam. Copy of the order is placed at Annexure-3 to the Supplementary Affidavit. Learned counsel thus submits that in view of the subsequent developments the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court. 5. In normal circumstances this Court would have issued notice to the opposite party no. 2 insofar as the merit of the case is concerned. However, taking into consideration the judgment and order passed by the appellate court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. I, Bhagalpur rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2009, whereunder by a judgment and order dated 07.12.2010 all the accused persons have been acquitted of the charges in view of the compromise entered between the parties except the present petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings as against the present petitioner in the light of the aforesaid circumstances would be an abuse of the process of the court. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the entire proceedings arising out of Kotwali (Tatarpur) P.S. Case No. 711 of 2005 pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur insofar as the present petitioner Bibi Hasrat @ Hasrat is concerned including the proceedings pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, is quashed and set aside. The application is allowed. ?