Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.44353 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Suresh Sharma Son of Sukhdeo Sharma 2. Dhananjay Sharma Son of Suresh Sharma 3. Parwati Devi Wife of Suresh Sharma 4. Jitendra Sharma Son of Suresh Sharma 5. Rina Devi Wife of Jitendra Sharma All are resident of Village Meh, P.S. Barun, District Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Urmila Devi wife of Sanjay Sharma, Daughter ofMandeo Sharma, Resident of Village Daranagar, P.S. Nawhata, District Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 30-03-2012 Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 8.10.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.350 of 2006 Trial No.1488 of 2009 by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, whereby petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44353 of 2009 (3) dt.30-03-2012 2 / 3 2 rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though in complaint petition, it was alleged that petitioners and husband of opposite party no.2 had committed offences under [STATUTE] and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance only for the offence under [STATUTE] and in absence of order of cognizance under the Dowry Prohibition Act, provision under [STATUTE] was not applicable. It was further submitted that no specific allegation was made by any of the witnesses, who were examined before the charge against any of the petitioners. Only general and omnibus allegation was made and as such it was a fit case for discharge of the petitioners. I have perused the complaint petition. In the complaint petition, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44353 of 2009 (3) dt.30-03-2012 3 / 3 3 specific averments have been made by the complainant showing involvement of all the petitioners. Even in the evidence before the charge, the witnesses have said regarding involvement of accused persons. Such materials are obviously sufficient for framing of charge. It was not a case for discharge. I do not find any defect in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed. N.H./- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.