SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kamleshwar Lal Karn And Others vs The State Of Bihar And Anr on 1 August, 2017

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18829 of 2012
An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

1. Kamleshwar Lal Karn S/O Late Deo Narayan Lal

2. Meera Devi W/O Kamleshwar Lal Karn

3. Rajani Kumari W/O Ajay Kumar And Daughter Of Kamleshwar Lal Karn

4. Raushan Kumar S/O Kamleshwar Lal Karna, petitioner nos. 1 to 4 R/O
Mohalla-Azad Nagar, Keera Kamal Sadan, Rambagh Chauri, P.S.-Mithanpura,

5. Asgar Hussain S/O Akbar Hussain R/O Mohalla-Mehadi Hassan Chauk, P.S.-
Brahampura, Distt-Muzaffarpur
…. …. Petitioner/s

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Ramchandra Lal S/O Late Shatrughan Lal R/O Mohalla-Mehsaul, P.S.-
Sitamarhi (Mehsaul O.P.), Distt-Sitamarhi
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh

Date: 01-08-2017

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

11.01.2011, passed by Sri Deepanshu Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate,

1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 1750 of 2010, Trial

No. 3607 of 2012, whereby cognizance has been taken against the

petitioners for the offences under sections 323, 341, 504, 379 and

384 of the Indian Penal Code.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18829 of 2012 dt.01-08-2017


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. The present complainant is the father-in-law

of petitioner no. 3 and Samdhi of petitioner no. 1. Both sides are on

litigating terms from before. Petitioner no. 3 had earlier filed a

complaint case under section 498A I.P.C. A matrimonial case was

filed by the son of the complainant. Son of the complainant has

solemnized second marriage and complainant and his son are not

ready to give maintenance. Only with a view to avoid payment of

maintenance the present false case has been lodged.

Petitioner against the present order under challenge,

preferred Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2011, which was dismissed

vide Annexure-2.

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


The petitioner by the present application is seeking

second revision of the order, which is in teeth of the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1993 Cr. L.J. 1049. Section

397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars a second revision

application by the same party. It is now well settled that the inherent
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18829 of 2012 dt.01-08-2017


powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. of the Code cannot be utilized for

exercising powers which was expressly barred by the Code. The

prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance is refused.

The application accordingly stands dismissed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)

CAV DATE 16.05.2017
Uploading Date 03.08.2017
Transmission 03.08.2017

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation