SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jai Narayan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 11 April, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.13913 of 2012

1. Jai Narayan Singh S/O Late Rameshwar Singh,

2. Daulato Devi W/O Jai Narayan Singh

3. Kamlesh Singh S/O Jai Narayan Singh

4. Meena Devi D/O Jai Narayan Singh

5. Sonu Kumar S/O Jai Narayan Singh

6. Kumari Devi D/O Jai Narayan Singh

7. Poonam Devi D/O Jai Narayan Singh, all resident Of Mohalla-

Bajar Samiti, Adarsh Colony, P.S.- Ara (NAWADA), District-
Bhojpur.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Abha Devi, wife of Sri Kamlesh Singh, resdient of Mohalla Bazar Samiti,
Adarsh Colony, P.S. Ara ( Nawada), District- Bhojpur, presently residing at
Mohalla Chandwa Tola, P.S. Ara ( Nawada) District- Bhojpur
… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mayanand Jha(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 29.09.2011, passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with

Complaint Case No. 112 C of 2010, whereby and whereunder

cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence

under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and further for

quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13913 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
2/5

The facts of the case, in short, is that initially the

mother-in-law of the complainant filed Complaint Case No.

1440 of 2008 on 24.08.2008 against the complainant and her

brothers for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324,

341 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal code, which was

subsequently registered as Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 195 of

2008 (Annexure-2). The police upon investigation has submitted

charge sheet and the matter is pending consideration before the

court below. Thereafter, complainant filed Complainant Case

No. 1493 of 2008 which was also subsequently registered as Ara

Nawada P.S. Case No. 202 of 2008. The police upon

investigation submitted final form on 31.07.2009 (Annexure-5),

holding the allegations not true against the accused. Thereafter

during the pendency of the police case registered at the instance

of the complainant was pending investigation, the present

protest cum-complaint case came to be instituted by the

complainant.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class upon

holding an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code and upon

consideration of the evidence given by the witnesses, led by the

complainant as also her own statement, dismissed the complaint

case under section 203 of the Code vide order dated 03.09.2010.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13913 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
3/5

The complainant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed

Cr. Revision No. 162 of 2010 and the learned Sessions Judge,

Bhojpur at Ara by order dated 09.06.2011 was pleased to set

aside the order dated 03.09.2010 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class and remitted the matter back for its fresh

consideration in accordance with law.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the present prosecution is a malicious prosecution

as the same has been launched after filing of the complaint case

by the present petitioners. Besides the above, learned counsel

submits that the matter having been remanded by the revisional

Court, the present order was passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhojpur at Ara taking cognizance of the

offences punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code on the basis of same materials and on appreciation of the

same evidence which earlier formed the basis for dismissal of

the complaint under section 203 of the Code. In the background

of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that the

continuation of the present prosecution would be an abuse of the

process of the Court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, the materials available on record and the submissions
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13913 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
4/5

advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds substance in

the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and agrees

with the same. The present case has been filed by the

complainant after filing of the case by the mother-in-law

(petitioner no. 2) 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 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 guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised:

(1) – (6) …….

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13913 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
5/5

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.”

In view of the discussions made above, the entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 112

C of 2010 including the order taking cognizance dated dated

29.09.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,

Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Complaint Case No. 112 C of

2010, is, hereby, quashed.

The application, accordingly, stands allowed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)
mcv/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 05.12.2017
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