IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.44200 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1932 Year- 2015 Thana -DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE
District- DARBHANGA
Meena Devi, W/o Sri Jitendra Singh, R/o Village- Pihwara, P.S.- Saharghat,
District- Madhubani.
…. …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Puja Singh W/o Anish Kumar Singh, D/o Mahamaya Prasad Singh, R/o Mohalla-
Kaidrabad, P.S.- Lalit Narayan Mithila University, District- Darbhanga.
…. …. Opposite Parties
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 13-04-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing the order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in
connection with Complaint Case (C.R.) No.1932 of 2015
corresponding to T.R. No.2898 of 2017 whereby the application of
the petitioner for being discharged from being prosecuted for the
offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been
rejected.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.44200 of 2017 dt.13-04-2018
2
petitioner that name of the petitioner has been added in the list of
accused with a view to implicate all the in-laws. Though, she has
been named as an accused in a general and casual manner, nothing
specific has been alleged against her and there is no evidence to the
effect that she ever subjected the victim to cruelty at any point of
time after she was married to her son. In this regard, he has placed
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra
and Anr. vs. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184].
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for the State submitted that in the complaint as also in the statement
of the complainant made on oath and in the statement of witnesses
recorded in course of inquiry and in course of evidence before
charge, specific allegations have been made against the petitioner
that she used to oftenly beat the complainant. He submitted that
such an allegation would definitely constitute an offence punishable
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and, hence, the court
below has rightly rejected the case of the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Section 245 of the Cr. P.C. prescribes that if,
upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the
Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case
against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.44200 of 2017 dt.13-04-2018
3
warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.
7. From the deposition of witnesses recorded in
course of inquiry as also before charge, which have been brought
on record by the petitioner in the present application, I find that
specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of
subjecting the victim to cruelty. The victim has also specifically
alleged that the petitioner also used to frequently beat her.
8. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that
from the materials on record, if unrebutted, no case would be made
out against the petitioner.
9. The facts of the present case are not identical to
that of the case of Neelu Chopra (supra) and, in that view of the
matter, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in that case would
not applicable in the present case.
10. In that view of the matter, I see no merit in this
application. It is dismissed, accordingly.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.04.2018
Transmission 16.04.2018
Date
