IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.14516 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2349 Year- 2012 Thana -SIWAN COM PLAINT CASE District-
SIWAN
1. Ranjit Kumar Sinha Son Of Ranjan Kumar Sinha
2. Ranjan Kumar Sinha Son Of Late Tej Bhadur Lal
3. Nira Devi Wife Of Ranjan Kumar Sinha.
4. Sanjit Kumar Sinha Son Of Ranjan Kumar Sinha
5. Amit Kumar Sinha Son Of Ranjan Kumar Sinha
6. Ajit Kumar Sinha Son Of Ranjan Kumar Sinha
7. Nitu Devi Daughter Of Ranjan Kumar Sinha
8. Nahni Kumari Daughter Of Ranjan Kumar Sinha
9. Sapna Kumari Daughter Of Ranjan Kumar Sinha 1 To 9 Resident Of Village-
Bashantpur, P.S- Bashantpur, District- Siwan
10. Ranjan Kumar Son Of Suresh Prasad Srivastava R/O Mohalla- Srinagar Siwan,
P.S- Siwan Muffsil, District- Siwan.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Rita Devi W/O Late Satish Kumar Sinha R/O Village Majhwaliya, P.S- Siwan
Muffasil, District- Siwan.
…. …. Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 11-04-2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of
order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st , Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 2349 of 2012 whereby the
learned court below took cognizance against the petitioners under
Sections 498A, 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal.
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.14516 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
2
The brief facts of this case is that the marriage of
daughter of complainant was solemnized with one Ranjit Kumar
Sinha, petitioner No.1, on 09.07.2008. It is alleged that in the
marriage, several demand were made by the petitioners such as Rs.
5,00,000, one motorcycle, and gold jewelry of 10 Bhar, furniture and
other articles and out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- and other articles were
given at the time of Tilak ceremony. Thereafter marriage was
solemnized and when the daughter of the complainant went to her
sasural, the petitioners have demanded rest Rs. 2,00000/- and non
fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to torture and assault
regularly by the accused persons, resultantly, a unborn baby died in
the womb of the daughter of the complainant. On 27.08.2012 when
the complainant got information that her daughter sustained injury
and she has been taken to P.M.C.H. for treatment, relatives of the
complainant went there but no one traced. Thereafter, the son of the
complainant informed her that her daughter died due to head injury.
Hence, the complainant suspected that the accused persons have
killed her daughter by inflicting injury on the head and lodged the
complaint case against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence. As
a matter of fact, prior to lodging of the complaint, an F.I.R. has been
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.14516 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
3
lodged bearing Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 160 of 2012 alleging
therein that while the petitioner No.1 was going on motorcycle along
with his wife for her treatment, one cycle driver came and dashed in
the motorcycle of the petitioner No.1, resultantly they fell down and
both of them sustained injuries and wife sustained severe head
injury. The petitioner has tried his level best to provide treatment to
her wife but she succumbed before injury and died in the way, this
fact is evident from Annexure-3 itself. The deceased was under
treatment of Dr. Sangita Choudhary is evident from Annexure-4.
Moreover, the I.O. has investigated the case and submitted charge
sheet under Section 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code against
unknown bicycle driver, which is evident from Annexure-5. It has
further been submitted that the complaint of the complainant was
dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2013/21.01.2013 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Siwan on the basis of report of the
police, which is evident from Annexure-6. Being aggrieved by the
order dated 20.01.2013.21.01.2013, the opposite party No.2 field a
challenged the said order in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2013 and
learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan has been
pleased to set aside the order in question with direction to pass a
fresh order after examination of all witnesses, which is evident from
Annexure-7. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.14516 of 2014 dt.11-04-2018
4
the offence under Section 498A, 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioners. On the above ground, it is submitted
that the cognizance order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st , Class, Siwan, is bad in law and is fit to be
quashed.
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 petitioners and agrees with
the same. In the present case, the petitioner has already shown his
bona fide by lodging the F.I.R. bearing Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.
160 of 2012 prior to lodging of the instant complaint. In view of the
aforesaid facts, the allegation leveled against the petitioners appears
to be general and omnibus and based on mere suspicion, which itself
shows the mala fide intention of the complainant to harass the
petitioners only, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners appears
to be a malicious prosecution in view of the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335. Relevant extract
of paragraph 102 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein-below
for ready reference;
” In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapeter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a serious of decisions relating to the exercise of the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.14516 of 2014 dt.11-04-20185
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 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 order taking
cognizance dated 06.01.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 2349 of
2012 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st , Class, Siwan, whereby and
whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the
offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is, therefore, quashed.
This application is, accordingly, allowed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
Brajesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 05.12.2017
Uploading Date 16.04.2018
Transmission 16.04.2018
Date
