Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3825 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3825 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Jai Ram Prasad , S/o Sadhu Saran Prasad. 2. Nandu Prasad @ Ramasish Prasad, S/o Jairam Prasad. 3. Ramanugrah Prasad, S/o Jai Ram Prasad. All the residents of Village Noni, P.S. Chandradeep, District-Jamui. Versus .... .... Petitioners. 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sanjogi Devi, wife of Ramanugrah Prasad, D/o Suresh Verma, Resident of Village- Noni, P.S. Chandradeep, District- Jamui. At present resident of Kajiphatuchak, P.S. Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 5 05-02-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This is a case for quashing the whole proceeding of G.R. No. 805 of 2009 arising out of Barbigha P.S. Case No. 213 of 2009 including order taking cognizance dated 31. 10. 2009 and order of framing of charge dated 30. 11. 2010. The prosecution case as alleged in the Fardbeyan by the informant Sanjogita Devi that her Maika at Village- Kajiphatuchak, P.S. Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura, her marriage was solemnised in the year 1999, after marriage her father-in-law Jai Ram Prasad, Dewar Nandu Prasad and husband Ramanugrah Prasad always used to assault and vex her for non-fulfillment of
Facts
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3825 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further alleged that on 01. 09. 2009, her father-in-law, Dewar and husband confined her in a vehicle and assaulted and took her Kajiphatuchak dropped her at Maika after assault her and commanded her to bring Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is also alleged that her husband wants to marry with another lady so the occurrence have done. On the written report of the informant, F.I.R. was lodged bearing Sheikhpura Barbigha P.S. Case No. 213 of 2009 dated 02.09. 2009. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet. The S.D.J.M after taking into consideration the material on record, took cognizance on 31. 10. 2009 for offence under Sections 498A, 323, 341 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and consequently charge was framed on 30.11. 2010 for offence under Sections 498A, 323, 341 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, challenged the order taking cognizance on the ground that prior to the institution of this case a case was filed before Family Court, Dhanbad bearing T.M.S. no. 367 of 2009 dated 13. 08. 2009 and
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is required to see prima facie whether allegation in complaint makes out an offence. This Court at this stage while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can neither appreciate the evidence nor take into consideration the probable defence of the accused. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised sparingly with grave care and caution and not to stifle the legitimate course of justice. However, taking into consideration the allegation made in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3825 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 the complaint, there is specific allegation that marriage of the victim was solemnised with Ramanugrah Prasad (petitioner no.3) and accused persons assaulted for non-fulfillment of demand of Rupees 5 lakhs and she was taken in car at Jamui and was taken to her Maika at Kajiphatuchak, P.S. Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura, and was assaulted and thrown out of the car to fetch Rupees five lakhs. Hence from the allegation made in the F.I.R. prima facie offence under Section 498A and 323 I.P.C. is made out. The allegation specifically states that part of cause of action has occurred in Kajiphatuchak where she was alleged to drop after being assaulted. It is well settled that court where the part of occurrence occurred has got jurisdiction to take cognizance. The next question for consideration is whether Barbigha P.S. Case No. 213 of 2009 has been filed maliciously with malafide intention to wreck vengeance with a view to spit him to private and personal grudge. Taking into consideration the relevant facts, the F.I.R. was lodged by the Opposite Party No. 2 on 02. 09. 2009 at Barbigha with allegation that she was residing with accused persons at Jamui where she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons. The accused persons subjected to cruelty at Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3825 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 Jamui on 01. 09. 2009. Thereafter, the accused persons took her in a vehicle and assaulted and brought at her Naihar Village- Kajiphatuchak, P.S. Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura and dropped her. However, the matrimonial case filed on 13. 08. 2009, at Dhanbad. The two cases were filed in proximate of time, admits that the parties were strained. There is nothing to show that the victim-wife was noticed or aware of the divorce case. The distance between Sheikhpura and Dhanbad is quite apart and far off from one another. Hence merely because a divorce case filed at Dhanbad a few days prior to lodging of the F.I.R. can by not fit of imagination can be said that the victim wife lodged the F.I.R. had knowledge of divorce case and had maliciously filed the case to wreck vengeance. Moreover, the police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet on which cognizance has been taken. Hence there is no merit in the submission that the F.I.R. has been lodged with malafide intention to wreck vengeance to spit to satisfy the personal grudge. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. required to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstance with great care and caution and not to stifle the legitimate course of justice and would not give the course of proceeding to be a mini trial. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3825 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 Hence having regard to the fact and circumstance, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. m.p. (Gopal Prasad, J)
Arguments
hence it is contended that this case has been filed after filing of the Divorce Case in the Family Court, Dhanbad, whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 02.09.2009, after institution of the said divorce petition Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3825 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 in the Family court, Dhanbad, hence this case is malicious prosecution to harass the petitioners. It is further contended that case has been filed in Barbigha whereas occurrence alleged to be taken place of Village Noni falling within Chandradeep Police Station of Jamui District hence Barbigha court had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance. Learned counsel for the opposite party however contends that case has been filed simultaneously and hence the case has not been filed either maliciously nor tainted with vengeance. It is further submitted that the part of occurrence as also alleged to be occurred in Barbigha, under the District of Sheikhpura, and hence this court has also jurisdiction.