IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12935 of 2012
1. SUDARSHAN YADAV S/O LATE SAHDEO YADAV R/O
VILLAGE – INDAULI, P.S. JAMO BAZAR, DISTRICT –
SIWAN, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 14SECTOR – C,
GANDHI PALACE, INDAUR ( M.P. )
2. INDU DEVI W/O SUDARSHAN YADAV R/O VILLAGE –
INDAULI, P.S. JAMO BAZAR, DISTRICT – SIWAN,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 14SECTOR – C, GANDHI
PALACE, INDAUR ( M.P. )
3. SEEMA KUMARI @ SEEMA YADAV D/O SUDARSHAN
YADAV R/O VILLAGE – INDAULI, P.S. JAMO BAZAR,
DISTRICT – SIWAN, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
14SECTOR – C, GANDHI PALACE, INDAUR ( M.P. )
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. MANJU DEVI W/O DINANATH YADAV, D/O SUDAMA RAY R/O
VILLAGE – INDAULI, P.S. JAMO BAZAR, DISTRICT – SIWAN, AT
PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE – HARIHARPUR, P.S. JAMO
BAZAR, DISTRICT – SIWAN
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar-I(App)
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 11-04-2018
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. 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
15.07.2011, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Siwan in connection with Complaint Case No. 299 of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12935 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
2/5
2011, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken
against the petitioners and others for the offence under section
498A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that after
marriage of the complainant, the accused persons used to
demand motorcycle and cash Rs. 50,000/-. The accused persons
asked the complainant to request her father to fulfill the said
demand, but her father was not able to fulfill the same.
Thereafter, due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, the
complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house after
keeping her belongings.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that no offence against the petitioners is
disclosed and the present prosecution has been initiated with
mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. It is
submitted that all the petitioners reside separately from the
husband of the complainant and they have been implicated in
this case merely because of they are relatives of the husband of
the complainant. From the complaint petition, solemn
affirmation and statement of witnesses, it appears that there is
no specific allegation against these petitioners. Further
submission is that the husband of the complainant filed Divorce
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12935 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
3/5
Case No. 72 of 2007 (Annexure-5) before the Family Court,
Siwan for grant of Decree of divorce. Therefore, learned
counsel prays for quashing the order taking cognizance.
5. 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 and agrees
with the same. The present case has been filed against these
petitioners, who are relatives of the husband of the complainant,
after filing of Divorce Case by the husband of the complainant,
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
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12935 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
4/5reproduced 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
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formula and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercise:
(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.”
6. In view of the discussions made above, the order
taking cognizance dated 15.07.2011, passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in connection with
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12935 of 2012 dt.11-04-2018
5/5
Complaint Case No. 299 of 2011, is not sustainable in the eye of
law. Therefore, it is, hereby, quashed.
7. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
Shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 30.11.2017
Uploading Date 12.04.2018
Transmission Date 12.04.2018