Patna High Court - Orders
Ajit Kumar Jaiswal & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 15 March, 2012
Author: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38427 of 2008
======================================================
1. Ajit Kumar Jaiswal.
2. Satya Narayan Choudhary.
Both sons of late Sita Ram Choudhary.
3. Gita Devi wife of Satya Narayan Choudhary.
4. Renuka Devi wife of Damodar Choudhary.
5. Rakesh Jaiswal @ Munna son of Damodar Choudhary.
All are residents of Mohalla-Thana Road Sultanganj, District-
Bhagalpur.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Smt. Ranjana Kumari Jaiswal, wife of Ajit Kumar Jaiswal,
resident of Mohalla-Thana Road, Sultanganj, P.S.-Sultanganj,
District-Bhagalpur, at present residing at C/o Balmukund Das
(Teacher), at Saraswati Sthan, Asarganj, P.S.-Asarganj, District-
Munger.
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shardanand Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjay Kr.Gupta, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 15-03-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, is to quash the order dated 25.08.2005, passed in Complaint Case No. 735-C of 2005 by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, summoning the accused-petitioners, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure finding prima facie case under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38427 of 2008 (6) dt.15-03-2012 2/3 Prohibition Act against the accused-petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners made submission that in fact the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Ranjana Kumari Jaiswal, who is the wife of petitioner no. 1, Ajit Kumar Jaiswal, was only graduate at the time of marriage so far her higher education, the petitioner no. 1 took the rental house at Bhagalpur in September, 2001 and in the year 2003, opposite party no. 2 completed the education of M.A. in Hindi and after Durga Puja she called to all family members (Mayaka) living there in rental house, so the petitioner no. 1 told to opposite party no. 2 to left the rental house and to shift at his parental house at Sultanganj but she refused and became furious. Thereafter, petitioners filed a matrimonial case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing Matrimonial Case No. 141 of 2004 but the same was dismissed on 03.07.2008 with direction to make payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 has filed the present complaint case against the petitioners and others with oblique motive to give pressure and also filed Matrimonial Case No. 79 of 2008 under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Bhagalpur, which is still pending.
On perusal of the impugned order dated 25.08.2005, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38427 of 2008 (6) dt.15-03-2012 3/3 it appears that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petitioner, S.A. of the complainant and statements of the witnesses, as examined in course of enquiry, arrived at conclusion that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused-petitioners and took the cognizance of the offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused- petitioners.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all points, raised herein, at appropriate stage in trial Court.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Safik/-