IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.57105 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-255 Year-2011 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas

1. Suresh Prasad Srivastava son of Late Narvadeshwar Prasad

2. Kamlesh Prasad Srivastava son of Suresh Prasad Srivastava

3. Shailesh Prasad @ Sonu S/o Suresh Prasad Srivastava

4. Shakuntala Devi W/o Suresh Prasad Srivastava All resident of
village- Jethwar, P.S.- Tarari, District- Bhojpur

5. Sarita Devi wife of Durgesh Prasad Srivastava,

6. Durgesh Prasad Srivastava, S/o Late Jagarnath Lal, Both resident
of village- Meari, P.S.- Baghela, District- Rohtas

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava son of Kanhaiya Lal resident of village- Ladui
Bishanpura, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas. Presently residing at
Gaurakshni, Ward No. 7, Sasaram, District- Rohtas

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad,APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-07-2018
Challenging the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the 4th

Additional District Sessions Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in Criminal

Revision No. 373 of 2011 and the order dated 05.11.2011 passed

by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram taking

cognizance in complaint Case No. 255(C) of 2011/Trial No. 2692

of 2011 for an offence under Section 323 and 380 of the Indian

Penal Code, this application has been filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57105 of 2015 dt.04-07-2018
2/6

Respondent no. 2, the complainant, had filed the

complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram and it was

the case that he was married with the daughter of petitioner no.1

on 15.08.2010 and all the petitioners came to his house on

15.08.2010 and wanted to take him to his sasural to live with his

wife in his sasural. It is the case of the complainant that he was not

willing to live in the sasural and, therefore, his wife was taken

away by force. On 28.11.2010 when the complainant went to his

sasurar for bringing back his wife and requested her to come it is

said that she did not come and thereafter on 07.03.2011 all the

petitioners quarreled with the parents of the complainant and

thereafter it is said that they initiated proceedings against him

under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act and the cases are under investigation. However, it is the

grievance of the complainant that all the petitioners came to his

house, assaulted him, threatened him and therefore he lodged the

complaint which has been registered.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

going through the body of the complaint and the statement of the

complaint it is seen that the incident is said to have taken place

initially on 15.08.2010 and thereafter on 07.03.2011. It is alleged

that they came to his house, assaulted his parents, he himself,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57105 of 2015 dt.04-07-2018
3/6

abused him and took away twenty five thousand rupees from his

house and left. It is surprising that the incident is said to have

taken place at 5 P.M. on 28.11.2010 and thereafter again on 30 th

November 2010. But between 28.11.2010 and 30.11.2010 till the

filing the complaint on 08.03.2011 there is no FIR lodged,

complaint or any sort of grievance raised. Thereafter, when the

incident is said to have taken place on 07.03.2011 at 6 P.M. again

no FIR was lodged. Only a bare statement is made that the police

has not registered the FIR and therefore the complaint was filed on

the next day, i.e. 08.03.2011. That apart, after narrating various

incidents in Paragraph-6 only bald allegations are made with

regard to assault and carrying the money. There is no specific

averment. On the contrary, it is seen from the record that the

petitioner’s daughter who is the wife of the complainant has

already initiated proceeding against him under Section 498A IPC

and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. That apart, in the

complaint and from the order-sheet available on the cord it is seen

that 05.11.2011 the complainant Rakesh Kumar Srivastava was

only examined and there is no statement of any other witness

available on record in support of the contention. It is the case of

the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the matter.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57105 of 2015 dt.04-07-2018
4/6

The question is can this Court in a proceeding under

Section 482 CrPC interfere and quash the proceeding. The

principle for exercising the inherent power of this Court has been

laid down in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2012)

10 SCC 303] wherein it has been held that the inherent power

available to this Court has no statutory limitation but the power

has to be exercised to secure the ends of justice to prevent the

abuse of process of any court and to ensure that nobody is dealt

with in a manner not permissible under law. Similarly, in the case

of Minu Kumari vs. State of Bihar [(2006) 4 SCC 354] the

principle laid down is that if the process of law is misused and if

on a bare reading of the complaint it is seen that no offence is

made out under Section 482 CrPC power can be exercised for

quashing the same. In the case of HMT Watches Limited vs. M A

Abida [(2015) 11 SCC 776] it has been laid down by the Supreme

Court that the power is of wide plenitude but it has to be exercised

with great deal of caution and not merely on the asking. The

defence of the accused need not be examined and interference

made but only on a bare reading of the complaint if the offence is

made out or if a case of misuse of the process of law is established

interference can be made.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57105 of 2015 dt.04-07-2018
5/6

In this case, the complaint in question is available on

record. Statement of the complainant Rakesh Kumar Srivastava is

also available on record. From Paragraphs -1 to 4 the complainant

speaks about his marriage and his wife staying in her house and

refusing to come with him. Thereafter, in Paragraph-5, he says that

on 15.08.2010 the petitioners came to his house at 5 P.M. and by

use of force made him to sign on a non-judicial stamp paper. Now,

if these incidents had taken place on 15.08.2010 it is surprising

that there is no complaint, lodging of FIR or any grievance made

to any person in any manner whatsoever. Thereafter, in Paragraph-

6 of the complaint, in a very vague and general manner he speaks

about the petitioners coming to him on 30th November 2010 and

harassing him. Thereafter he again says that on 07.03.2011 they

came to his house, assaulted him, his father and other family

members and left. No FIR has been lodged with regard to the

incident even the details of the manner in which the criminal act

was conducted is not indicated. All the petitioners who are the

parents, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant have

been implicated and no specific act is attributed to any of them for

constituting offence under Section 323 or 380 IPC. Only vague

and omnibus allegations are made and the fact that has come on

record clearly shows that at the instance of the complainant’s wife
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57105 of 2015 dt.04-07-2018
6/6

proceedings have been initiated against him for offence under

Section 498A IPC. The FIR is available on record. Criminal

proceeding and the FIR is lodged much prior to the incident as

narrated by the complainant.

Taking note of the all the factors, I am of the considered

view that reading of the complaint or the statement of the

complainant available on record does not disclose commission of

offence. It is a case where from the record it is evident that he has

filed the complaint only to put pressure on the petitioners because

of the proceeding initiated against him earlier by his wife and,

therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am

of the opinion that it is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction can be

exercised to prevent misuse of the process of law and injustice to

the senior citizens like the petitioners.

Accordingly, this application is allowed. Proceeding in

Cr. Revision No. 373 of 2011 arising out of Complaint Case No.

255(C) of 2011 (Trial No. 2692 of 2011) pending in the court of 4 th

Additional District Sessions Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas is quashed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
mrl./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 06.07.2018
Transmission Date 06.07.2018