Patna High Court - Orders
Jagarnath Prasad & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 20 June, 2013
Author: Gopal Prasad
Bench: Gopal Prasad
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36421 of 2012 (3) dt.20-06-2013
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36421 of 2012
======================================================
1. Jagarnath Prasad S/O Late Bal Mukund Prasad Resident Of Mohalla-
Gurudwara Road, Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. Sumitra Devi W/O Late Bal Mukund Prasad Resident Of Mohalla-
Gurudwara Road, Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Manish Kumar Prasad S/O Sri Jagarnath Prasad Resident Of Mohalla-
Gurudwara Road, Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Rinku Devi W/O Mahesh Kumar, D/O Bihari Lal Sao Residing At
Lalapur Kudra, P.S.- Kudra, District- Kaimur (Bhabua).... Opposite Parties
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
3 20-06-2013Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, opposite party no. 2 and the State.
This is a petition for quashing the order, dated 24.07.2012, passed in Complaint Case No. 505 of 2008, corresponding to Tr. No. 696 of 2012 by which the petition for discharge has been rejected under Section 245 of Criminal Procedure Code.
The prosecution case, as alleged in the complaint case that the complainant was married with accused no. 3 and at the time of marriage Rs.3,40,000/- was given to the father of the husband and other articles, worth Rs.1,00,000/-, were also given. It has, further, been alleged that after one week of the marriage the accused demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and subjected the victim to cruelty and passing sarcastic remarks. The victim shows inability to fulfill the demand, then, her husband, accused no. 3, assaulted her by slaps and fists. It has, further, been alleged that she was not providing food and on information the complainant, the father of the victim, gone to her and the victim disclosed about the demand and subjecting to cruelty. It is, further, alleged that the husband, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36421 of 2012 (3) dt.20-06-2013 2/4 accused no. 3 assaulted in full view of the witnesses and the complainant. After the birth of a female child the sasural people asked the victim to go to Vaishno Devi with them for tonsuring the head of the child and it alleged that while returning, accused no. 3 snatched the child from the lap of the victim-wife and the victim-wife was thrown out of the train and asked her to bring Rs.5,00,000/- and only then she will be permitted to inter into the house.
The statements of the complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code was taken and, thereafter, the cognizance was taken, however, in the statement of the victim-wife it has been stated that her husband and his family members have took her to Vaishno Devi and there she lived with her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. It has, further, been stated that while returning back from Vaishno Devi the victim-wife was subjected to get down from the train at Kudra Railway Station. It has, further, been stated that her husband assaulted her and snatched her daughter and, thereafter, she came to her naiher.
From the allegation, made in the complaint, as well as statements of the witnesses, there is specific allegation against the husband, but, there is no specific allegation against the father-in-law and mother-in-law. However, taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses' cognizance was taken against eight accused persons, named in the complaint case. However, it is asserted that one of the co-accused died and four had challenged the order of cognizance before the High Court. The High Court quashed the proceeding against the four accused persons. Thereafter, a petition has been filed under Section 245 of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36421 of 2012 (3) dt.20-06-2013 3/4 the Criminal Procedure Code for discharge by the petitioner, which has been rejected on 24.07.2012.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners either in the complaint or even in the statement, made during enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, contended that the victim-wife though have named the father-in-law and mother-in-law amongst the persons to take the victim to Vaishno Devi.
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstance though there is demand and subjecting cruelty and there is specific allegation about assault and demand against the husband and the allegation against the other accused persons is general and omni bus and, further, while returning from Vaishno Devi, there is specific allegation against the husband that he is the person who snatched the child from the lap of the victim-wife and drove the victim away from the train. However, no role has been attributed to the father-in-law and mother-in-law for any act of commission and omission or subjecting to cruelty by them.
Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no specific allegation against the father-in-law and mother-in-law and no role has been attributed to them for subjecting to cruelty, hence, allowing the prosecution against the father-in-law and mother-in-law would be an abuse of the process of the Court and the impugned order, dated 24.07.2012, passed in Complaint Case No. 505 of 2008 against petitioners 1 and 2 is quashed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36421 of 2012 (3) dt.20-06-2013 4/4Since, there is specific allegation against the husband, petitioner no. 3, I do not find no merit to interfere with the impugned order, dated 24.07.2012, passed in Complaint Case No. 505 of 2008 and this petition, so far petitioner no. 3 is concerned is hereby rejected.
(Gopal Prasad, J) SA/-