IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16192 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2011 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
1. Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Kumar S/O Bharat Singh
2. Bharat Singh S/O Late Ram Bachchan Singh
3. Radhika Devi W/O Bharat Singh
4. Seema Kumari D/O Bharat Singh All Are Resident Of Village
Horila Chhapra, Police Station Malahi, District East Champaran.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Reena Devi D/O Dashrath Singh Resident Of Mohalla Balwanawa, Police
Station Town Motihari, District East Champaran.
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. C.Sen Pd.Singh(App)
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 11-04-2018
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
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 16.01.2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16192 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
2/6
Town (Motihari) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2011, whereby and
whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioners
for the offence under sections 498A, 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is alleged that on giving gifts by the father of
the informant as per capacity, the date of marriage of the
informant with petitioner no. 1 was fixed. But, just before
marriage, further demand of rupees two lakhs cash was made.
Father of the informant gave Rs. 50,000/- and on assurance that
the rest amount will be given after marriage, marriage was
solemnized. After marriage, the accused persons started
torturing the informant. On 30.12.2010, the accused persons tied
the informant and assaulted her with fists and slaps. Petitioner
no. 2 ordered to kill her upon which the petitioner no.3 brought
kerosene oil and gave in the hand of petitioner no. 4. Petitioner
no. 4 after opening the same handed over to co-accused Amresh
Singh, who sprinkled the same on the body of the informant.
Co-accused Sanjay Singh gave match box to petitioner no. 1 for
setting her body on fire. In the meantime, informant raised
alarm on which neighbours came and some how her life could
be saved.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16192 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
3/6
submits that the present case is a bundle of false allegations and
a legal engineering for making a serious case under the Indian
Penal code as also the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is neither
any injury report on the record nor any evidence to substantiate
that the accused persons either assaulted the informant or tried
to set her on fire. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner
is fully complying the order of this Court dated 25.10.2011
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35365 of 2011 and is paying Rs. 2000/-
per month to the informant which would be evident from the
bank receipts contained in Annexure-4. Besides the present
case, opposite party no. 2 has also filed D.V. Case No. 06 of
2011, Maintenance Case No. 108 of 2011 and Town Motihari
P.S. Case No. 108 of 2017. As a matter of fact, the opposite
party no. 2 is an undisciplined lady and she always used to
misbehave with her in-laws. In course of hearing of Divorce
Case No. 285 of 2010, she even assaulted the petitioner with her
footwear in open Court at Family Court, Motihari. In that
connection, petitioner also filed application before the Court
below for his protection. The counsel of the petitioner was also
threatened by the opposite party no. 2 and her associates. He has
also filed an application in that respect in the Court below.
Learned counsel has brought on record the copies of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16192 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
4/6
aforesaid applications and the order dated 17.11.2011 as
Annexure-5 (series) to the present application. It is lastly
contended that the sister of the petitioner no. 1, who is a
handicapped aged more than 40 years unmarried lady, has been
made accused in the present case, which shows the falsity of the
allegations levelled. In the background of the above
submissions, learned counsel prays for quashing of the order
taking cognizance.
Considering the materials available on record and
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds
substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and agrees with the same. Opposite party no. 2 has
filed the present Complaint case against the accused persons
under sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act without there being any
Injury Report., which was later on forwarded to the police under
section 156(3) Cr. P.C. where it was registered as Town Motihari
P.S. Case No. 56 of 2011. After investigation, police submitted
charge-sheet against four accused persons i.e. the present
petitioners only under section 498A I.P.C.
Learned Magistrate differing with the police
report took cognizance against all nine accused persons under
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16192 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
5/6
sections 498A 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Code of Criminal Procedure gives
the Magistrate the power of differing with the Police report, but
the Magistrate has to give reasons as to what are the materials in
the diary on basis of which he has differed with the Police
Report. Apparently, the present case has been registered under
section 307 IPC without there being any Injury Report. The part
of the Complaint which relates to Section 307 I.P.C. is prima
facie an absurd story. It has been alleged that accused persons
caught the informant and tied her. Thereafter, petitioner nos. 3
4 with the help of Babli Devi (accused no. 7 in complaint) tied
her with the leg of Chowki and all started assaulting her with
fists and slaps. Petitioner no. 2 ordered to kill her and asked
petitioner no. 3 to bring kerosene oil upon which petitioner no. 3
brought kerosene oil and gave in the hand of petitioner no. 4
who after opening the gallon handed over the same to co-
accused Amresh Singh (accused no. 6 in complaint), who
sprinkled the same on the body of the informant. Accused
Sanjay Singh (accused no. 8 in complaint) gave match box to
petitioner no. 1 and asked him to kill the informant by setting
her on fire. The allegations on the face of it, in absence of any
injury or any specific material, shows how tactically on
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16192 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
6/6
allegations of committing a crime entire family members are
implicated. The part of the Complaint which relates to Section
307 I.P.C. is prima facie an absurd story.
Further, in the present case in absence of any
Injury Report learned Magistrate without referring to any
specific paragraph of the case diary wherein he found materials
against the accused persons has differed with the police report
and has taken cognizance of the offence under section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, which is a misuse of the process of the
Court. Accordingly, the order dated 16.01.2012, passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari
in connection with Town (Motihari) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2011,
whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the
petitioners for the offence under sections 498A, 307 of the
Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act is, hereby, quashed.
The application, thus, stands allowed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
mcv/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 05.12.2017
Uploading Date 12.04.2018
Transmission Date 12.04.2018