IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16079 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -507 Year- 2012 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-
PURNIA
1. Ankit Kumar Sinha @ Ankit Sinha S/O Murari Pd.
2. Murari Pd. S/O Rudra Narain Pd.
3. Nilam Devi W/O Murari Pd. All Are Resident Of Mohalla – Gulzar Bagh, B.N.R.
Training College Near, Pathari Ghat, P.S. – Alamganj, Dist. – Patna
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Anshu Kumari W/O Sri Ranjit Kumar Sinha, D/O Sri Abhay Kumar Sinha
Resident Of Mohalla – Mahabala, P.S. – Rupauli, Dist. – Purnea
…. …. Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tilak Sao
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 22-09-2017
Heard both the parties.
Petitioners, by means of this application under section
482 of the Cr. P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court with prayer to quash the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by
S.D.J.M., Purnea in Complaint Case No. 507 of 2012, whereby
cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence
under section 498A of the I.P.C.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and the present
prosecution has been instituted with mala fide intention for the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16079 of 2014 dt.22-09-2017
2/3
purposes of harassment.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the
application by contending that there are allegations against the
petitioners and no ground for quashing the entire proceedings is made
out.
From perusal of the materials available 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 petitioners. All the submissions made
at bar relates to the disputed questions of facts, 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 proceed in the matter is required.
At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vrs. State of
Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vrs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 SCC (Cr,) 426, State of Bihar Vrs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vrs. Mohd. Saraful
Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and recently in
A.R.C.I. Vrs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 348.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners 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
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16079 of 2014 dt.22-09-2017
3/3
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 petitioners have got a right of
discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and they
are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application
before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the order taking
cognizance is refused.
The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
Shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 25.07.2017
Uploading Date 23.09.2017
Transmission 23.09.2017
Date