IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.53654 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1788 Year- 2012 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- MUZAFFARPUR
1. Abu Yusuf Jafri @ Yusuf Jafri Son Of Late Munshi Ali Baksh R/O Mohalla-
Rahmanganj, Masjid Chauk, P.S.- Nagar, District- Madhepura
2. Hasmun Nisha @ Hasbun Nisha Wife Of Abu Yusuf Jafri @ Jusuf Jafri R/O
Mohalla- Rahmanganj, Masjid Chauk, P.S.- Nagar, District- Madhepura
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Akbari Khatoon Wife Of Md. Arshad Akhtar, Daughter Of Md. Mumtaz R/O
Mohalla- Bakshi Colony, Ramraji Road, P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, District-
Muzaffarpur
…. …. Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anusuiya Jaiswal
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date: 25-07-2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner, 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
16.11.2012, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East
Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 1788 of 2012, Tr. No. 2024 of
2013, whereby prima facie case has been found against petitioners
for the offence under sections 323, 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53654 of 2013 dt.25-07-2017
2/3
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 appearing for the State opposes the
application by contending that there are allegations against the
petitioner and no ground for quashing the entire proceedings is made
out.
From perusal of the material on record and looking into
the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is
made out against the petitioner. All the submissions made at bar
relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated
upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under section 482
Cr. P.C. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the
existence of sufficient ground to proceeding in the matter is required.
The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner call
for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately
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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be
considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioner has got a right of
discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and he is
free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53654 of 2013 dt.25-07-2017
3/3
before the trial Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned order is
refused.
The application accordingly stands dismissed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
Manish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 01.05.2017
Uploading Date 27.07.2017
Transmission 27.07.2017
Date