Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35373 of 2012 ============================================== 1. Sanjeev Ranjan S/O Shri Krishna Kumar Prasad R/O Nilkantha Colony, Sector - 2, Ashiana Nagar, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, Patna .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Priti Kumari, d/o Dinesh Prasad, w/o Rajiv Ranjan, resident of Shri Krishna Nagar, House No. 1, Road No. 1, Patna .... Opposite Parties ============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 6 10-07-2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This is a petition for quashing the order, dated
Legal Reasoning
04.06.2012, passed by Shri Ravi Ranjan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 303 of 2009 (G.R. No. 4093 of 2009), by which the charge has been framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 498A/34 of the Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking into consideration the allegation, made in the written report by the victim, it is apparent that there is no specific allegation, who happens to be the devar of the victim and the allegation against the petitioner is general and omni bus without any specific act of omission and commission. The prosecution case, as alleged by the informant, is that the marriage of the victim was solemnized with Rajiv Ranjan, son of Shri Krishna Kumar Prasad of Ashiana Nagar, Patna, according to Hindu customs and at the time of marriage Alto car, television, washing machine, mixer, jewelleries and other house Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35373 of 2012 (6) dt.10-07-2013 2/4 hold articles were given and after the marriage she went to sasural and remained at sasural for two months and, thereafter, it is alleged that her husband, on instigation of his sister and father, started assaulting her. It is further alleged that his devar resides at Delhi and has purchased a flat there. It is alleged that the accused persons has demanded Rs.50,000/- for the contribution in the said flat and when the complainant refused, then, father-in-law, nand, husband, devar assaulted her. It has, further, been alleged that the accused persons, then, demanded money from her sister and brother, but, she refused to demand from them. It is further alleged that thereafter her husband and his sister demanded money on phone from her brother, but, her brother refused, then, she was threatened. It is further alleged that on 07.08.2009 her father-in- law asked her to give a bond of money and abused and assaulted her and when she disclosed the fact to her husband, then, he, along with his father and mother, assaulted her. On the basis of complaint, first information report lodged and after investigation police submitted charge sheet on which the cognizance taken and, thereafter, the charge has been framed. However, taking into consideration the entire facts, whole allegation about the assault and subjecting cruelty is specifically against the husband, father-in-law and nanad. However, there are two devars, namely, Sanjeev Ranjan and Ranjit Ranjan, against whom charge has been framed. The petitioner is Sanjeev Ranjan, one of the devars and taking into consideration the entire first information report there is mention of Ranjit Ranjan and the allegation against the devar is that the devar of the informant lives at Delhi and they have purchased a flat. However, it is not mentioned that who specifically has purchased Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35373 of 2012 (6) dt.10-07-2013 3/4 the flat and, further, the father-in-law, lhusband and devar assaulted her. However, neither the date nor the specific name of devar, who assaulted nor there is any specific overt act alleged against the devar and whatever allegation has been made against devar is only general and omni bus though it has also been disclosed that devar lives at Delhi. However, a defence has been set up that a false case has been filed because the victim wants to have a partition and since the husband was not agreeing for partition. However, at this stage while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or the Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge can neither look into the defence of the accused nor consider any material, hence, the submission that the case has been filed on the ground that the victim-informant demanded partition so false case has been filed. However, so far taking into consideration the evidence that the allegation against the petitioner in the first information report against the petitioner, who happens to be the devar is general and omni bus and there is no specific overt act in the petition that the devar lives at Delhi and it is matter of common dispute and in the matrimonial dispute there is general tendency of the complainant to implicate as many as family members in the case for offence under Section 498A of the Penal Code. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation against the petitioner is only general and omni bus and only bald statement has been made against the devar has been made indicates the agony of the complainant to implicate all the family members in the case, which includes this petitioner. The exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35373 of 2012 (6) dt.10-07-2013 4/4 Procedure Code requires to be made sparingly in a rate cases, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the allegation against the petitioner is general and omni bus and vague that he along with other assaulted without any specific overt act, mentioned in the fardbeyan, and allowing the prosecution to continue shall be an abuse of the process of the Court and, hence, in the interest of justice and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I find and hold that the prosecution against the petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. The order, dated 04.06.2012, passed by Shri Ravi Ranjan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 303 of 2009 (G.R. No. 4093 of 2009), is hereby quashed and this petition is allowed. (Gopal Prasad, J) SA/-