IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46480 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SIWAN
1. Raunak Siddiqui Son of Rasid Siddqui
2. Rasid Siddqui Son of Late Abdul Haque
3. Jahida Siddqui Wife of Rasid Siddqui
All Resident of Village-Sheikh Muhalla Churi Mandi, P.S.-Siwan
Town, District-Siwan
…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Yashmin Praveen, D/o Jalalludin Khan, W/o – Raunak Siddiqui,
R/o Mohalla – Sheikh Muhalla Churi Mandi Siwan, P.S. – Siwan
Town, district – Siwan, at present resident of village –
Bishambharpur, P.S. – Pachukhi, District – Siwan.
…. …. Opposite Party
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Jay Prakash Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 26-07-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioners are husband, father-in-
law and mother-in-law of the victim lady, who is
opposite party no. 2 in the present case, are seeking
quashing of the order dated 16.05.2013, passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan, in
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017
2
Complaint Case No. 391/2013, by which learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
decided to issue summon against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has
assailed the order taking cognizance on the ground
that the allegation as made in the complaint are
false, concocted and baseless and the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance in a routine and
mechanical manner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that so far as petitioner no. 2 3 are
concerned, they are father-in-law and mother-in-law
respectively and in many a judicial pronouncement of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reliefs have been granted
to father-in-law and mother-in-law in a case under
Section 498A I.P.C. Referring to Annexure-2 to the
petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the same is a decree of divorce granted by Darool
Kaza Emaarat-E-Sharia, Siwan and Gopalganj in
Case No. 36/448 of 1433 Hizari on 20.12.2012, and
only thereafter the present complaint has been filed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017
3
A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the complainant/opposite party no.2, in
which the opposite party no. 2 has specifically denied
the claim of the petitioners that there was a divorce
between the parties. In paragraph 2 of the counter
affidavit following statements have been made which
reads as such:
“2. That the fact as claimed by the petitioner
that both the parties have signed divorce
paper with their consent before Darool Kaza
Emaarat-E-Sharia is totally false and the
complainant/O.P. No.2 has never signed
any of such document.”
A further reading of the counter affidavit
which has been placed by learned counsel
representing opposite party no.2 would show that
the opposite party no.2 is vehemently disputing the
divorce paper which the petitioner no. 1 produced
before the learned court of Sessions Judge, Siwan for
the purpose of anticipatory bail. In fact, the allegation
of opposite party no. 2 is that the same is totally
forged and fabricated documents.
It is further pointed out that the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017
4
no.1, while seeking Anticipatory Bail in Cr. Misc. No.
43855/2013, was directed to deposit Rs. 750/- per
month, as interim maintenance to the opposite party
no. 2, but the same was not deposited, thereafter, at
the instance of the court, a mediation took place as
the petitioner no.1 had shown willingness to settle
the matter.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.
2 further submits that, in fact, a perusal of the order
dated 02.07.2014, passed by a coordinate Bench of
this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 43855/2013, would show
that the petitioner no.1 had given an undertaking
before the court for purpose of Anticipatory Bail
whereunder he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 11
lacs by way of demand draft payable to opposite party
no. 2 as interim arrangement without prejudice to
case of either parties. This court vide its order dated
02.07.2014 passed in the said Cr. Misc. No.
43855/2013, directed that on payment of the said
amount by way of demand draft within the aforesaid
period the provisional anticipatory bail granted to the
petitioner shall stand confirmed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017
5
The grievance of the opposite party no. 2 is
that the petitioner no. 1 took benefit of the said order
dated 02.07.2014 passed by a coordinate Bench of
this Court and kept on getting extended the date
before the court below with an assurance to deposit
the amount but the same was not done. After loosing
hopes, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Siwan, vide his order dated 18.05.2016, cancelled the
bail bond of the petitioner no. 1, thereafter, also he
remained free by virtue of interim protection granted
by this Court in the present case.
Further submission of learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 is that the order taking
cognizance has been passed on the basis of material
available on the record, this Court would not go into
the merit of the allegations at this stage and on a
bare reading of the complaint supported by the
statement on oath of the complainant and the inquiry
witnesses would show that an offence under Section
498A is prima facie made out.
On the last date, when this Court had
came to know that the petitioner, despite disobeying
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017
6
the order dated 02.07.2014, passed by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in the said Cr. Misc. No.
43855/2013, is moving freely by virtue of an interim
protection of this Court in the present case, the same
was vacated, as the petitioner who had disobeyed an
order of this Court could not have been allowed to
take benefit of another order of this Court. For the
reasons mentioned in the order dated 19.07.2017 the
interim order was vacated.
Since, it is a case under Section 498A
I.P.C. arising out of a matrimonial dispute, this Court
once again made a specific query to learned counsel
representing the petitioners as to whether his clients
particularly petitioner no.1 is still ready and willing to
pay the total amount of Rs. 11 lacs and comply with
the order of this Court, the reply of learned counsel is
not bona fide. The learned counsel for the petitioners
attempted to dispute the order by resiling from the
undertaking given by petitioner no.1. Learned
counsel submitted that his client cannot pay the said
amount and go on contesting the cases brought by
this complainant. There is not even assurance that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017
7
his client is ready and willing to deposit the amount
within a week or so. These facts are being recorded in
order to take note of the bona fide of the petitioners
in pursuing the present application, by which he is
invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash
the criminal proceeding.
I have perused the complaint petition and
the materials available on record. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Case of State of Harayana Vs.
Bhajan Lal since reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC
335; has laid down by way of illustrations as many
as seven examples, whereunder the court can
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the allegations are false, concocted and
baseless, but this Court, on a bare reading of the
complaint petition, would come to a conclusion that
without adding or substracting anything out of it, the
complaint petition discloses a prima facie case under
Section 498A. The complainant and inquiry witnesses
have supported the allegation specifically made
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017
8
against these petitioners. The learned Magistrate has
found a prima facie case of torture/cruelty against
these petitioners. So far as the merit of the
allegations are concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has cautioned repeatedly that in exercise of the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is
not supposed to go into the merit of the allegation,
and, therefore, I am unable to accept the submission
of learned counsel for the petitioners that the
allegations are false and baseless. Whether the
allegations are proved or not will be an issue to be
taken up by the trial court at an appropriate stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have not cited any
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of
his contention that father-in-law and mother-in-law
should be granted relief by way of quashing of
summon against them. The submissions are, thus
totally misconceived. There are allegation against all
the petitioners in this case and by no stretch of
imagination the view taken by learned Magistrate at
this state can be said to be illegal or irrational.
Having considered the rival submissions,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46480 of 2013 dt.26-07-2017
9
in view of the discussion hereinabove, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the order taking
cognizance in the present case. Accordingly, the
application stands dismissed.
So far as the submission of learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as regards non-
compliance with the order dated 02.07.2014 in Cr.
Misc. No. 43855/2013 is concerned, for that his
client may take such appropriate steps as may be
available to her in accordance with law.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 28.07.2017
Transmission 28.07.2017
Date