IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
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,
Distt-Muzaffarpur
5. Asgar Hussain S/O Akbar Hussain R/O Mohalla-Mehadi Hassan Chauk, P.S.-
Brahampura, Distt-Muzaffarpur
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
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
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
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
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. 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
out.
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
3/3
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)
Manish/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 16.05.2017
Uploading Date 03.08.2017
Transmission 03.08.2017
Date
