Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1524 (PAT)

Pankaj Kant Jha v. State of Bihar

2012-11-05

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Karn, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Sri Ashok Kumar Prasad, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of complainant/Opp.Party no.2 as well as learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.3/ wife of petitioner no.1. 2. Three petitioners i.e. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of Opp.Party no.3, have approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 17.06.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur , Madhubani in Complaint Case No.933 of 2009. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 342, 379, 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 , who is father of Opp.Party no.3, had initially filed a complaint petition vide Complaint Case No.933 of 2009 before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur for offence under Section 498 A and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the petitioners and other members of their family. The said complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registering F.I.R. and investigating the case and , as such, an F.I.R. vide Phulparas P.S. Case No.154 of 2009 was registered. 4. During investigation, accusation was found untrue and, as such, the police submitted final report recommending prosecution of the complainant for the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Before filing of the final report, the complainant had filed a protest petition. On protest petition, an enquiry was conducted and the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of cognizance, as indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 had pursued the protest petition only with a view to save his own skin due to the reason that in Phulparas P.S. Case No. 154 of 2009 the police after investigation had come to the conclusion that the complainant had filed false case and, as such, final report was submitted. While submitting final report, the police had recommended for prosecuting the complainant for offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. While submitting final report, the police had recommended for prosecuting the complainant for offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that it is a peculiar case, in which the father of the wife of the petitioner no.1 has filed a complaint on an accusation of commission of offence under Section 498A and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but the wife, on whom atrocities were committed, was not even cited as witness nor she was examined during enquiry. It was further submitted that after the marriage, the wife i.e. Opp.Party no.3 is happily living with her husband and in-laws, but due to the reasons unknown to the pcomplainant, the father of Opp.Party no.3 had filed the said complaint case. 6. In this case, petitioner no.1, who is husband of Opp.Party no.3 and Opp.Party no.3 have personally appeared before this Court. Opp.Party no.3 even during the court proceeding has stated that she is happily living with her husband. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the case was thoroughly investigated and final report was submitted, the alleged victim girl was not examined during enquiry and she appeared before this Court and stated that she is living happily with her husband, the Court is of the opinion that allowing further proceeding before the court below would be simply allowing abuse of the process of the court. Once the wife, in respect of whom it was alleged by Opp.Party no.3 that atrocities were committed on her by the accused persons, was not examined during enquiry and before this Court she has asserted that she is happily living with her husband, there is no reason to allow the proceeding before the court below. 8. Accordingly, order of cognizance 17.06.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani in Complaint Case No.933 of 2009 is hereby set aside. The petition stands allowed.