INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATPATNA
CRIMINALMISCELLANEOUSNo.3253of2015
ArisingOutofP.S.CaseNo.-139Year-2010Thana-BARHARAKOTHIDistrict-Purnea
1.Md.Rauf@AbdulRauf,SonofMd.Yunus.
2.Md.YunusSonofLateMd.Sudhi.
3.SaminaKhatoonWifeofMd.Yunus.
4.Md.TaslimSonofMd.Sudhi.
5.Md.AminSonofMd.Taslim.
6.BibiRukshanaKhatoonWifeofMd.Amin.
AllareResidentsofVillageMurballa,P.S.Barhara,District-Purnea.
……Petitioner/s
Versus
1.TheStateofBihar
2.ZainabKhatoonDaughterofZfauddinandWifeofMd.Rauf,Residentof
VillageMurballa,PoliceStationBarhara,DistrictPurnea.
……OppositeParty/s
Appearance:
ForthePetitioner/s:Mr.Nafisuzzoha,
Mr.FirozAhmadand
Mr.Md.ManzerKarim,Advocates
FortheOppositePartyNo.2:Dr.BidhuRanjanand
Mr.DwijRaj,Advocates
FortheState:Mr.Md.Arif,APP
CORAM:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEAHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORALJUDGMENT
Date:26-04-2019
Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitioners;learnedAPP
fortheStateandlearnedcounselfortheoppositepartyno.2.
2.ThepetitionershavemovedtheCourtunderSection
482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973(hereinafterreferred
toasthe’Code’)forthefollowingrelief:
“That,thisapplicationisforquashing
thecognizanceorderdated13.12.2011ofthe
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3253of2015dt.26-04-2019
2/5
C.J.M.,PurneapassedinBarharaP.S.CaseNo.
139of2010G.R.No.2863of2010bywhich
cognizancehasbeentakenfortheoffenceunder
Section498(A)/Section34oftheIndianPenalCodeand
3/4D.P.Actagainstthepetitionersinthe
circumstancessetforthbelow.”
3.Theallegationagainstthepetitionersisofdemandof
dowry.
4.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmittedthatthe
presentcaseismalafideforthepurposeofharassingthe
petitionersandalsopatentlyillegal.Itwassubmittedthatearlier
theoppositepartyno.2hadfiledComplaintCaseNo.2677of
2010beforetheChiefJudicialMagistrate,Purneaon02.08.2010
againstthepetitionersunderSections323,Section504andSection498Aofthe
IndianPenalCodeand3/4oftheSectionDowryProhibitionAct,1961.It
wassubmittedthatinthecomplaintcaseallegationsarewith
regardtosnatchingofnecklace,earrings,assaultanddemandof
dowryofRs.50,000/-.LearnedcounselsubmittedthattheFIR
wasfiledon23.11.2010,whichalsospeaksofassault,abuseand
demandofdowryofRs.1,50,000/-Itwassubmittedthatinthe
complaintfiled,theallegationsunderSections323,Section504,Section498Aof
theIndianPenalCodeand3/4ofSectionTheDowryProhibitionAct,
1961,whereasinthepresentFIRitisonlyunderSections498A/
Section34oftheIndianPenalCodeand3/4oftheSectionDowryProhibitionAct.
Learnedcounselsubmittedthatfilingofthecomplaintcaseis
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3253of2015dt.26-04-2019
3/5
threeandahalfmonthspriortofilingoftheFIR,butsuchfacthas
notbeenmentionedintheFIRandmoreover,inthecomplaintthe
allegationisthatthedemandofdowrywasofRs.50,000/-
whereasintheFIRtheamountofdowrysoughthasbeen
enhancedtoRs.1,50,000/-.Learnedcounselsubmittedthatinthe
complaintcase,theCourtbelowhasconvictedsomeofthe
accused.Learnedcounselsubmittedthatbasedonthesame
allegationsandaftertrialtherebeingconvictionofsomeofthe
accused,thepresentcasealsobasicallyraisingthesameaccused
couldnotbeallowedtocontinueasitwouldbeanabuseofthe
processoftheCourt.
5.LearnedAPPfairlysubmittedthatbasedonthesame
allegations,therecouldbemultiplecases.
6.Learnedcounselfortheoppositepartyno.2
submittedthatthetwocasesarenotthesame,inasmuchas,inthe
presentcase,thereisallegationofattempttomurderofthe
oppositepartyno.2,whichwasnotthereinthecomplaintcase.
However,onaqueryoftheCourtthatevenintheFIR,the
allegationisnotofanyattemptofmurderbutonlyanallegation
thattheoppositepartyno.2hadbeeninformedthatherfather-in
lawhassent7and8unknownpersonswitharmstokillthe
oppositepartyno.2andherfather,howcoulditbesaidtobean
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3253of2015dt.26-04-2019
4/5
attempttocommitmurderandalsomoreso,inviewofthefact
thatinthecomplaintcase,theallegationsweremorewideas
comparedtothepresentFIRandfurtherthatafterfilingofthe
complainttheoppositepartyno.2hadnotgonebacktothe
matrimonialhomesoastogiveanyfreshordifferentcauseof
actionandalsothatsuchfactoffilingofcomplaintwas
suppressedintheFIR,learnedcounselcouldnotgiveanyanswer.
7.Havingconsideredthefactsandcircumstancesofthe
caseandsubmissionsoflearnedcounselfortheparties,theCourt
findsthatacaseforinterferencehasbeenmadeout.
8.Learnedcounselforthepetitionershasrightly
pointedoutthattheoppositepartyno.2havingfiledthecomplaint
inwhichtherewerewidespreadallegationsandthenfilinganFIR
afterthreeandahalfmonthswithoutevenindicatingfilingofthe
complaintcaseandwithlesserallegationsandalsonofreshor
differentcauseofactionhavingarisenasoppositepartyno.2had
notgonebacktothematrimonialhomeafterfilingofthe
complaintcase,clearlythepresentFIRcannotbepermittedinlaw.
Thesame,thus,isanabuseoftheprocessoftheCourtwhichis
requiredtobepreventedbyexerciseofinherentpowerSectionofthe
CodeunderSection482oftheCode.
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3253of2015dt.26-04-2019
5/5
9.Accordingly,theapplicationisallowed.Theentire
criminalproceedingarisingoutofBarharaPSCaseNo.139of
2010(G.R.No.2863of2010)pendingbeforetheCourtbelowat
Purneaincludingtheorderdated13.12.2011,bywhichcognizance
hasbeentaken,standsquashed.
(AhsanuddinAmanullah,J.)
AnandKr.
AFR/NAFR
U
T