Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 413 (PAT)

Alpana Devi v. State of Bihar

2012-03-06

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER Heard Shri Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pradeep Narayan Kunwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri Ambika Bhagat, who was assisted by Shri Kamal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/complainant. 2. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 26.5.2008 passed by Shri S.K. Dikshit, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur in Complaint Case No.1064 (C) of 2007, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In the present case, a complaint petition was filed by opposite party no.2, who is husband of petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since petitioner no.1 had filed maintenance case before the court below vide Case No.105(M) of 2007, wherein learned Family Court had directed the complainant of the present case to make payment of interim compensation of Rs.1,000/- per month, the opposite party no.2 in retaliation had filed complaint petition before the court below in which order of cognizance was passed. It has further been submitted that besides maintenance case, there were some other cases in between the parties. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Ambika Bhagat, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2, at bar, has submitted that in between the parties, dispute has already been settled outside the court. Now husband and wife i.e. petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2/complainant are residing peacefully and leading their family life. It has also been submitted that now in view of change circumstances, complainant does not want to proceed with the case. 5. In view of the fact that dispute has already been settled outside the court and petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 started to lead their family life as husband and wife, no purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding before the court below in Complaint Case No.1064 (C) of 2007 to further proceed. 6. Accordingly, for the ends of justice, it is required to interfere with the impugned order of cognizance i.e. 26.5.2008 passed by Shri S.K. Dikshit, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur in Complaint Case No.1064 (C) of 2007 and accordingly the impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.1064 (C) of 2007 is hereby set aside. 6. Accordingly, for the ends of justice, it is required to interfere with the impugned order of cognizance i.e. 26.5.2008 passed by Shri S.K. Dikshit, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur in Complaint Case No.1064 (C) of 2007 and accordingly the impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.1064 (C) of 2007 is hereby set aside. The petition stands allowed. ?