Patna High Court - Orders
Nakul Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 21 June, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3644 of 2010
======================================================
Nakul Yadav, Son of Rasik Lal Yadav, Resident of Village - Sadpur, Police
Station - Amarpur, District - Banka.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Kalpana Devi, W/o Nakul yadav, D/o Buchkuu Yadav, Resident of
Village Lahaita, P.S. Bounsi, District - Banka.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 21-06-2012Heard Sri Balram Kapri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar No. 2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Gautam Kumar Jha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.
The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 07.05.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka. By the said order learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code.
Short fact of the case is that, initially, the petitioner had filed a complaint on 18.04.2007 against his wife/Opposite Party No. 2, which was subsequently referred to the Police and a case vide Banka P.S. Case No. 218 of 2007, was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 379 & 34 of the Indian Penal 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3644 of 2010 (3) dt.21-06-2012 2/3 Code. During investigation, the allegation made in the F.I.R. was found completely false, and as such, while submitting Final Report Police recommended prosecution of the petitioner, who was informant in the case, for the offence under Sections 182 / 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Final Report was submitted on 20.09.2007, and thereafter, on 29.09.2007, a protest petition was filed by the petitioner. It was admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on protest petition no cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate. Subsequently, by the impugned order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may take sympathetic approach against the petitioner keeping in view the fact that subsequently, dispute in between petitioner and his wife, who is Opposite Party No. 2, has already been settled.
Be that as it may, fact remains that during investigation the case was found false, and thereafter, the petitioner was recommended for prosecution. The Court is of the opinion that order of cognizance requires no interference. The petition stands dismissed.
If so advised, petitioner may take appropriate stand 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3644 of 2010 (3) dt.21-06-2012 3/3 before the court below at appropriate stage.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/-