Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41145 of 2013 dt.24-03-2017




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

                           Criminal Miscellaneous No.41145 of 2013

        In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
    ===========================================================

1. Mehadi Hassan S/O Md. Noor Mohammad @@ Shekh Noor Mohammad
Resident Of Village + P.O. – Ariyaon, P.S. – Krishnabrahm, District – Buxar

2. Noor Mohammad @ Shekh Noor Mohammad S/O (Not Known) Late Bechu
Mohammad Resident Of Village + P.O. – Ariyaon, P.S. – Krishnabrahm, District

– Buxar

3. Ashma Khatoon Wife Of Md. Noor Mohammad @ Shekh Noor Mohammad
Resident Of Village + P.O. – Ariyaon, P.S. – Krishnabrahm, District – Buxar

4. Md. Anwar @ Shekh Md. Anwar S/O Md. Noor Mohammad @ Shekh Noor
Mohammad Resident Of Cisf Unit Zc/Nfc, Pazahayakayal, District – Tuticorim,
Timilnadu

5. Munni Khatoon @ Rukshana Nisha W/O Md. Qayum @ Shekh Abdul Qayum
Dumraon, Ward No. 4, P.S. – Dumraon, District – Buxar

6. Soni Khatoon D/O Md. Sahabuddin Resident Of Village + P.S. – Chaugai, P.S. –

Murar, District – Buxar

7. Md. Anwar @ Wife Of Md. Amar @ Praween Tabassum, W/O Md. Anwar @
Shekh Md. Anwar, W/O Md. Anwar @ Shekh Md. Anwar, Resident Of CISF
Unit ZC/NFC, Pazahayakayal, District – Tuticorim, Timilnadu
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Farzana Khatoon W/O Mehadi Hassan Resident Of Village – Lala Toli
Dumraon, P.S. – Dumraon, District – Buxar( Bihar) Present Address – Farzana
Khatoon, D/O Sahzad Alam, Resident Of Village – Atasarai, P.S. – Islampur,
District – Nalanda
…. …. Opposite Party/s
===========================================================
Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad,
Mr. Anirudh Mishra, Advocates
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Addl. P.P.
===========================================================
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41145 of 2013 dt.24-03-2017

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C A.V. JUDGMENT
Date: 24-03-2017

Heard learned counsel 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

07.06.2013, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa

(Nalanda) in Complaint Case No. 1077 C of 2012 whereby and

whereunder cognizance against the petitioners has been taken under

section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and

the present prosecution has been instituted with mala fide intention

for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel pointed out towards

certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there

appears no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for

the petitioner.

The law regarding sufficiency of material which may

justify the summoning of accused and also the Court’s decision to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41145 of 2013 dt.24-03-2017

proceed against them in a given case is well settled. The Court has to

eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last

details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the

case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie

satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to

proceed in the matter is required.

The submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioners calls for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may

be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial Court and while

doing so even the submission made on point of law can also be more

appropriately gone into by the trial Court in this case. This Court

does not deem it proper, and therefore, cannot be persuaded to have a

pre trial before the actual trial begins.

In the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna

Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736, the Hon’ble Apex Court

had held as follows :

“The magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in
the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by
him. Once the magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not
for the High Court, or even this Court, to substituted its own
discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on
merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in
the complaint, if proved would ultimately end in conviction of
the accused.”

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41145 of 2013 dt.24-03-2017

Perusal of the complaint and also the materials

available on record, make out a prima facie case against the accused

at this stage. I do not find any justification to quash the order taking

cognizance. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not

see any abuse of the court’s process.

The application is, therefore, dismissed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)

Manish/-

AFR/NAFR       NAFR
CAV DATE 02.02.2017
Uploading Date 27.03.2017
Transmission 27.03.2017
Date