IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14243 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1560 Year- 2011 Thana -DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE
District- DARBHANGA

1. Suman Kumar @ Suman Kumar Jha S/O Raghbendra Jha

2. Raghbendra Jha S/O Late Kedar Jha

3. Dharmsheela Devi W/O Raghbendra Jha

4. Chaman Jha @ Chaman Kumar Jha S/O Raghbendra Jha

5. Rupa @ Rupa Kumari D/O Raghbendra Jha All Resident Of Village –
Hariharpur, P.S. – Kamtaul, District – Darbhanga, At Present Raghbendra Jha,
Mohalla – Nathupura, Q. No. – 1477, P.O. – Swarupnagar, District – Burari, Delhi

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Nitu Kumari W/O Suman Kumar Resident Of Village – Hariharpur, P.S. –
Kamtaul, District – Darbhanga, D/O Sri Mohan Jha, Resident Of Village – Baruara
Bahadurpur Fekla, O.P., District – Darbhanga
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Karn
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumr Pandey

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date: 24-08-2017

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

25.10.2011, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Darbhanga, in C.R. No. 1560 of 2011, whereby cognizance has been

taken against the petitioners for the offences under section 498A, 313

of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14243 of 2014 dt.24-08-2017

2/3

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

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. They have been falsely implicated in the

present case. Petitioner no. 1, who is husband of the complainant,

filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. On

getting knowledge of the same, the present false case has been

lodged. Learned counsel submits that provisions of section 498A

I.P.C. should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motive. In

support of the above submission, learned counsel placed reliance on

the judgment reported in 2008 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 507.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the

application by contending that there are allegations against the

petitioner and no ground for quashing the order taking cognizance 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 petitioner. 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 Supreme Court in

cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 SC 866, State
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14243 of 2014 dt.24-08-2017

3/3

of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.

P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283

and recently in A.R.C.I. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016)

1 SCC 348. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in on different set of facts, and as such, the same is not

applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any

ground to interfere with the order taking cognizance. The prayer for

quashing the same is refused.

The application accordingly stands dismissed.

However, petitioners have got a right of discharge through a proper

application and they are free to take all the submissions in the said

discharge application before the trial Court.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)
Manish/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 30.06.2017
Uploading Date 25.08.2017
Transmission 25.08.2017
Date