SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ram Bali Prasad @ Ram Bali Prasad … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 11 April, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15166 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1036 Year-2012 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nawada

1. Ram Bali Prasad @ Ram Bali Prasad Gupta Son of Late Babulal
Sao

2. Girja Devi Wife of Sri Ram Bali Prasad Gupta

3. Bhobha Devi @ Anuradha Kumari @ Sweety wife of Pankaj
Kumar D/o Sri Ram Bali Prasad Gupta All above Sl. No.-1 to 3
are R/o Station Road Jehanabad, P.S. and District-Jehanabad.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Pankaj Kumar Son Of Late Ramchandra Prasad Resident Of Fatehpur More,
P.S.-Akwarpur, District-Nawada.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kr. 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 03.01.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 1036 of

2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawada,

whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the

petitioners and other accused persons for the offence under

sections 147, 148, 380 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution case, in short, is that oppoiste party no.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15166 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
2/5

2 filed a Divorce Case No. 26 of 2010 under section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, against the present petitioner no. 3, and

when summons were issued in that case against the present

petitioners and other accused persons, they all, under

conspiracy, entered into the house of the complainant and

threatened them to compromise the case. On denial by the

complainant, all the accused persons took their pistol out of

their waist and started assaulting the complainant with fists,

slaps and butt of the pistol. After assaulting that also looted the

house of the complainant and took away ornaments, clothes etc.

worth rupess two lakhs.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law and

wife of the complainant respectively. It is submitted that

petitioner no. 3 was married with the complainant on

26.02.2009 (Annexure-2), but since after marriage, she was

tortured and assaulted by her husband and in-laws for meeting

out the demand of rupees three lakhs as dowry. In this

connection a Panchayati (Annexure-3) was also held in which

complainant assured to keep the petitioner no. 3 separately with

full honour and dignity. But after some time, accused persons

again started torturing for meeting out the aforesaid demand. In
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15166 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
3/5

the year 2011, petitioner no. 3 came to know that her husband

has filed Divorce Case No. 26 of 2010 (Annexure-4). In

divorce petition, statement was made that marriage took place

on 8.07.2008, which is false as marriage was solemnized on

26.02.2009. The petition for divorce was filed on absolutely

false and frivolous grounds. It is further submitted that

petitioner no. 3 filed a petition dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure-5)

against her husband and her in-laws before the Superintendent

of Police, Jehanabad, but the said case was not registered by the

police. On non-institution of the case, petitioner no. 3 lodged

Complaint Case No. 797 of 2012 (Annexure-6) in which

cognizance has been taken under sections 498A I.P.C. and

section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel

submtis that the present case has been filed by the complainant

alleging therein that his wife and other in-laws came to his

house and threatened him compromise the matter. They all took

out pistol from their waist and assaulted the complainant with

fists, slaps and butt of the pistol. Further, after assaulting the

complainant, they also looted the house. It is quite improbable

that a wife with his mother, father and other relatives will go to

the house of the husband and commit such crime, as alleged. It

is absolutely an imaginary story hatched up by the complainant
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15166 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
4/5

on basis of absolutely absurd and improbable allegations.

Learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties

opposes the prayer of the petitioner.

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. On the face

of allegations, this Court is of the opinion that the present case

case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan

Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 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 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 channelised and inflexible
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15166 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
5/5

guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised :

(1) – (4) ……….

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.”

In view of the discussions made above, this Court

finds that order dated 03.01.2014 passed in Complaint Case

No. 1036 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Nawada, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken

against the petitioners and other accused persons for the

offence under sections 147, 148, 380 and 323 of the Indian

Penal Code, is not sustainable in the eye of law. The same is,

hereby, quashed.

The application, accordingly, stands allowed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)
mcv/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 13.11.2017
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 Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

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