Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.23421 of 2010 1. SHREE KRISHNA PRASAD GUPTA S/O LATE RAM VILASH KANU 2. CHINTA DEVI W/O KRISHNA PRASAD GUPTA 3. TARKESHWAR PRASAD S/O KRISHNA PRASAD GUPTA 4. VINDHYANCHAL PRASAD @ VINAY KUMAR S/O KRISHNA PRASAD GUPTA ALL R/O VILLAGE- BRAHMPUR, P.S. BRAHMPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR ………….Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MENKA DEVI D/O TUNTUN PRASAD R/O MUHALLA-CHINI MILL, BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR(T), DISTRICT- BUXAR ……….Opposite Party ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. B.J. Ojha, Adv. For the O.P. NO.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Ramakant Yadav, Adv. ---------------------------------- 3. 16.01.2012 1. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.05.2009 passed in Complaint Case no. 331/2008, Tr. No.1434/2010 by learned S.D.J.M. Buxar for the offence under [STATUTE] and 3/4 D.P. Act. 2. According to the complaint filed by one Menka Devi on 08.04.2008, she was married to the petitioner no.4 on 18.02.2005. It has been alleged that sometime after marriage her husband demanded Rs.23000/- and other articles and for which she was assaulted and she was left at Buxar platform while she was pregnant. It is stated that in due course on 14.07.2006, she gave birth to a male child. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant complaint is nothing but an act of retaliation to his earlier petition for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. It is stated that in fact it was the complainant who had deserted him for which such a petition had been filed, but later on withdrawn in view of the present complaint filed by the opposite party no.2. 5. It is further stated that petitioner no.1, who is the father of petitioner no.4 is aged about 65-70 years and is a retired school teacher, petitioner no.2 is his wife who is also an old lady and both are suffering from various ailments. Petitioner no.3 is the brother of petitioner no.4 who is said to be living separately from the family and is in no way concerned with the affairs of his brother. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the various prescriptions and medical papers (Annexure-3 series) to prima facie show that the complainant was duly taken care of during her pregnancy and the averments in the complaint are patently mischievous. He has also stated that the complainant’s sister Nutan Devi had also similarly lodged a complaint under Section 498-A against her own in-laws in the year 2001 when in the course of trial the witnesses even accepted that she had lodged false case against the accused persons who were accordingly acquitted in that case. 7. The opposite party no.2 was noticed as far back as in February, 2011 and has appeared through her counsel who is present today. However, no counter affidavit has been filed controverting the statements contained in the instant petition despite sufficient time being available for the purpose. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the decision rendered in 2005 (3) SC 203 in support of his submission that the provisions of Section 498-A are being widely misused and the instant case is one such example. 9. Considering the materials on record and especially in view of the earlier case lodged by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, this appears to be a clear cut case of retaliation which has been filed with an oblique motive only to harass the petitioners. I am of the view that allowing the prosecution to continue against the petitioners in the present case would amount to abuse of process of Court. 10. In the above circumstances, the impugned order of cognizance dated 19.05.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 331/2008, Tr. No.1434/2010 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Buxar, is hereby quashed and the application stands allowed. Fahad. Vikash Jain, J. )

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.