SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sudarshan Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 11 April, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12935 of 2012

1. SUDARSHAN YADAV S/O LATE SAHDEO YADAV R/O
VILLAGE – INDAULI, P.S. JAMO BAZAR, DISTRICT –
SIWAN, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 14SECTOR – C,
GANDHI PALACE, INDAUR ( M.P. )

2. INDU DEVI W/O SUDARSHAN YADAV R/O VILLAGE –
INDAULI, P.S. JAMO BAZAR, DISTRICT – SIWAN,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 14SECTOR – C, GANDHI
PALACE, INDAUR ( M.P. )

3. SEEMA KUMARI @ SEEMA YADAV D/O SUDARSHAN
YADAV R/O VILLAGE – INDAULI, P.S. JAMO BAZAR,
DISTRICT – SIWAN, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
14SECTOR – C, GANDHI PALACE, INDAUR ( M.P. )

… … Petitioner/s

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. MANJU DEVI W/O DINANATH YADAV, D/O SUDAMA RAY R/O
VILLAGE – INDAULI, P.S. JAMO BAZAR, DISTRICT – SIWAN, AT
PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE – HARIHARPUR, P.S. JAMO
BAZAR, DISTRICT – SIWAN

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar-I(App)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 11-04-2018

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. Petitioners, by means of this application under section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have invoked the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated

15.07.2011, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Siwan in connection with Complaint Case No. 299 of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12935 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
2/5

2011, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken

against the petitioners and others for the offence under section

498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that after

marriage of the complainant, the accused persons used to

demand motorcycle and cash Rs. 50,000/-. The accused persons

asked the complainant to request her father to fulfill the said

demand, but her father was not able to fulfill the same.

Thereafter, due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, the

complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house after

keeping her belongings.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submits that no offence against the petitioners is

disclosed and the present prosecution has been initiated with

mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. It is

submitted that all the petitioners reside separately from the

husband of the complainant and they have been implicated in

this case merely because of they are relatives of the husband of

the complainant. From the complaint petition, solemn

affirmation and statement of witnesses, it appears that there is

no specific allegation against these petitioners. Further

submission is that the husband of the complainant filed Divorce
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12935 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
3/5

Case No. 72 of 2007 (Annexure-5) before the Family Court,

Siwan for grant of Decree of divorce. Therefore, learned

counsel prays for quashing the order taking cognizance.

5. Considering the materials available on record and

the facts of the case, this Court finds substance in the

submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and agrees

with the same. The present case has been filed against these

petitioners, who are relatives of the husband of the complainant,

after filing of Divorce Case by the husband of the complainant,

which in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,

reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 is a malicious prosecution.

Relevant extract of paragraph 102 of the aforesaid judgment is

quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :

“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under

Chapter XIV and of the principles of law

enunciated by this Court in a series of

decisions relating to the exercise of the

extraordinary power under Article 226 or the

inherent powers under section 482 of the

Code which we have extracted and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12935 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
4/5

reproduced above, we give the following

categories of cases by way of illustration

wherein such power could be exercised either

to prevent abuse of the process of any Court

or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,

though it may not be possible to lay down any

precise, clearly defined and sufficiently

channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid

formula and to give an exhaustive list of

myriad kinds of cases wherein such power

should be exercise:

(1)…….(6)……..

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge.”

6. In view of the discussions made above, the order

taking cognizance dated 15.07.2011, passed by the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in connection with
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12935 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
5/5

Complaint Case No. 299 of 2011, is not sustainable in the eye of

law. Therefore, it is, hereby, quashed.

7. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)

Shailendra/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 30.11.2017
Uploading Date 12.04.2018
Transmission Date 12.04.2018

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh