Raunak Siddiqui & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 26 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46480 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SIWAN

1. Raunak Siddiqui Son of Rasid Siddqui

2. Rasid Siddqui Son of Late Abdul Haque

3. Jahida Siddqui Wife of Rasid Siddqui
All Resident of Village-Sheikh Muhalla Churi Mandi, P.S.-Siwan
Town, District-Siwan
…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Yashmin Praveen, D/o Jalalludin Khan, W/o – Raunak Siddiqui,
R/o Mohalla – Sheikh Muhalla Churi Mandi Siwan, P.S. – Siwan
Town, district – Siwan, at present resident of village –
Bishambharpur, P.S. – Pachukhi, District – Siwan.

…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Jay Prakash Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 26-07-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioners are husband, father-in-

law and mother-in-law of the victim lady, who is

opposite party no. 2 in the present case, are seeking

quashing of the order dated 16.05.2013, passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan, in
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017

2

Complaint Case No. 391/2013, by which learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and

decided to issue summon against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has

assailed the order taking cognizance on the ground

that the allegation as made in the complaint are

false, concocted and baseless and the learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance in a routine and

mechanical manner.

Learned counsel for the petitioners

further submits that so far as petitioner no. 2 3 are

concerned, they are father-in-law and mother-in-law

respectively and in many a judicial pronouncement of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court reliefs have been granted

to father-in-law and mother-in-law in a case under

Section 498A I.P.C. Referring to Annexure-2 to the

petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the same is a decree of divorce granted by Darool

Kaza Emaarat-E-Sharia, Siwan and Gopalganj in

Case No. 36/448 of 1433 Hizari on 20.12.2012, and

only thereafter the present complaint has been filed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017

3

A counter affidavit has been filed on

behalf of the complainant/opposite party no.2, in

which the opposite party no. 2 has specifically denied

the claim of the petitioners that there was a divorce

between the parties. In paragraph 2 of the counter

affidavit following statements have been made which

reads as such:

“2. That the fact as claimed by the petitioner
that both the parties have signed divorce
paper with their consent before Darool Kaza
Emaarat-E-Sharia is totally false and the
complainant/O.P. No.2 has never signed
any of such document.”

A further reading of the counter affidavit

which has been placed by learned counsel

representing opposite party no.2 would show that

the opposite party no.2 is vehemently disputing the

divorce paper which the petitioner no. 1 produced

before the learned court of Sessions Judge, Siwan for

the purpose of anticipatory bail. In fact, the allegation

of opposite party no. 2 is that the same is totally

forged and fabricated documents.

It is further pointed out that the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017

4

no.1, while seeking Anticipatory Bail in Cr. Misc. No.

43855/2013, was directed to deposit Rs. 750/- per

month, as interim maintenance to the opposite party

no. 2, but the same was not deposited, thereafter, at

the instance of the court, a mediation took place as

the petitioner no.1 had shown willingness to settle

the matter.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.

2 further submits that, in fact, a perusal of the order

dated 02.07.2014, passed by a coordinate Bench of

this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 43855/2013, would show

that the petitioner no.1 had given an undertaking

before the court for purpose of Anticipatory Bail

whereunder he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 11

lacs by way of demand draft payable to opposite party

no. 2 as interim arrangement without prejudice to

case of either parties. This court vide its order dated

02.07.2014 passed in the said Cr. Misc. No.

43855/2013, directed that on payment of the said

amount by way of demand draft within the aforesaid

period the provisional anticipatory bail granted to the

petitioner shall stand confirmed.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017

5

The grievance of the opposite party no. 2 is

that the petitioner no. 1 took benefit of the said order

dated 02.07.2014 passed by a coordinate Bench of

this Court and kept on getting extended the date

before the court below with an assurance to deposit

the amount but the same was not done. After loosing

hopes, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Siwan, vide his order dated 18.05.2016, cancelled the

bail bond of the petitioner no. 1, thereafter, also he

remained free by virtue of interim protection granted

by this Court in the present case.

Further submission of learned counsel for

the opposite party no. 2 is that the order taking

cognizance has been passed on the basis of material

available on the record, this Court would not go into

the merit of the allegations at this stage and on a

bare reading of the complaint supported by the

statement on oath of the complainant and the inquiry

witnesses would show that an offence under Section

498A is prima facie made out.

On the last date, when this Court had

came to know that the petitioner, despite disobeying
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017

6

the order dated 02.07.2014, passed by a coordinate

Bench of this Court in the said Cr. Misc. No.

43855/2013, is moving freely by virtue of an interim

protection of this Court in the present case, the same

was vacated, as the petitioner who had disobeyed an

order of this Court could not have been allowed to

take benefit of another order of this Court. For the

reasons mentioned in the order dated 19.07.2017 the

interim order was vacated.

Since, it is a case under Section 498A

I.P.C. arising out of a matrimonial dispute, this Court

once again made a specific query to learned counsel

representing the petitioners as to whether his clients

particularly petitioner no.1 is still ready and willing to

pay the total amount of Rs. 11 lacs and comply with

the order of this Court, the reply of learned counsel is

not bona fide. The learned counsel for the petitioners

attempted to dispute the order by resiling from the

undertaking given by petitioner no.1. Learned

counsel submitted that his client cannot pay the said

amount and go on contesting the cases brought by

this complainant. There is not even assurance that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017

7

his client is ready and willing to deposit the amount

within a week or so. These facts are being recorded in

order to take note of the bona fide of the petitioners

in pursuing the present application, by which he is

invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash

the criminal proceeding.

I have perused the complaint petition and

the materials available on record. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the Case of State of Harayana Vs.

Bhajan Lal since reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC

335; has laid down by way of illustrations as many

as seven examples, whereunder the court can

exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the allegations are false, concocted and

baseless, but this Court, on a bare reading of the

complaint petition, would come to a conclusion that

without adding or substracting anything out of it, the

complaint petition discloses a prima facie case under

Section 498A. The complainant and inquiry witnesses

have supported the allegation specifically made
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017

8

against these petitioners. The learned Magistrate has

found a prima facie case of torture/cruelty against

these petitioners. So far as the merit of the

allegations are concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has cautioned repeatedly that in exercise of the

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is

not supposed to go into the merit of the allegation,

and, therefore, I am unable to accept the submission

of learned counsel for the petitioners that the

allegations are false and baseless. Whether the

allegations are proved or not will be an issue to be

taken up by the trial court at an appropriate stage.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have not cited any

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of

his contention that father-in-law and mother-in-law

should be granted relief by way of quashing of

summon against them. The submissions are, thus

totally misconceived. There are allegation against all

the petitioners in this case and by no stretch of

imagination the view taken by learned Magistrate at

this state can be said to be illegal or irrational.

Having considered the rival submissions,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017

9

in view of the discussion hereinabove, this Court is

not inclined to interfere with the order taking

cognizance in the present case. Accordingly, the

application stands dismissed.

So far as the submission of learned

counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as regards non-

compliance with the order dated 02.07.2014 in Cr.

Misc. No. 43855/2013 is concerned, for that his

client may take such appropriate steps as may be

available to her in accordance with law.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-

AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 28.07.2017
Transmission 28.07.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *