Home > IPC 498A Misuse Judgements > Brij Kishore Prasad, Sheojee … vs The State Of Bihar on 16 May, 2006

Brij Kishore Prasad, Sheojee … vs The State Of Bihar on 16 May, 2006

Bench: J Bhatt

Brij Kishore Prasad, Sheojee Prasad And Suchita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 16/5/2006


J.N. Bhatt, C.J.

Page 1247

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (In short “the Code”), by which the petitioners have made a prayer for quashment of the order dated 24.11.2005 of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda, passed in Complaint Case No. 161(C)/2004, corresponding to Bihar P.S. Case No. 54 of 2004 by which the learned Court below has refused to discharge the petitioners from the charges under Sections 498A, 406. and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The instant trial arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant-wife, Khusbu Kumari, against her husband, and the petitioners, alleging, inter alia, that she was married with Sanjay Kumar, in the year 2003, who was engaged in a partnership business with petitioners. After the marriage when the complainant came to live with her husband, she found that Braj Kishore Prasad was also living there along with his family. In course of time, the complainant gathered that her husband had illicit connection with petitioner No. 3. the wife of petitioner No. 1. and when she objected to it, her husband and the petitioners began to torture her, both mentally and physically. whereupon her father brought her with him. The complainant further alleged that the Page 1248 accused petitioners and her husband demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her. if she wanted to live with him separately. One night she found her husband and petitioner No. 3 sleeping on the same bed. When she protested, all the accused persons assaulted her and drove her out from the house.

3. Learned Counsels for the parties have been heard. Police papers and record emerging from the present case have also been examined.

4. In order to avail the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashment of the Criminal Proceedings. it has to be shown that there is exceptional case for exercise of such powers. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not embark upon a fresh inquiry – whether the allegations against the petitioners in the complaint is likely to be established or not. The power under Section 482 of the Code, as per the settled proposition of law, has to be exercised sparingly. Such powers are extra-ordinary powers and are designed to help those persons against whom, on plain reading of the complaint petition or relevant papers, no offence is made out or constituted. The interference in minor matters with the help of Section 482 of the Code would be warranted only when the complaint or the first information report or the Police papers do not, even on plain perusal, constitute, prima facie, any offence against the accused persons.

5. In the recent decision in the case of Mohd. Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalal and Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 608, the Hon’ble Apex Court has highlighted. once again, the principles for the purpose of exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the criminal proceedings. When and how such powers should be excercised are also articulated and expounded. Obviously, such powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution and not to stifle legitimate prosecution. Such powers could only be exercised in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence and it is brought to the notice of the Court that it is frivolous, excessive, vexatious or oppressive. At that stage of quashment of the proceedings, meticulous appreciation of evidence or quality of the material or detailed analysis is not warranted.

6. In the instant case, upon consideration of the facts profile, as well as, the legal set up, highlighted herein above, and the record, it is noticed that, prima facie, no offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is disclosed against the petitioners, who are business partners of the husband of the complainant.

7. Learned Counsel for the State has also fairly conceded that in such a case, proceeding ought to be quashed as the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be allowed to be misused.

8. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.1.2004 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in Complaint Case No. 161(C) of 2004 corresponding to Bihar P.S. Case No. 54 of 2004 is quashed Consequently the entire criminal prosecution, so far as these petitioners are concerned, shall also stand quashed.

9. In the result, the petition shall stand allowed. Rule is made absolute.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: