Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.34660 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Fahimuddin Ansari, son of Mani Hasan @ Nabu Mian 2. Hafiz Parwez Alam @ Parwez Alam, son of Fahimuddin Ansari 3. Firoz Alam @ Firoj Akhtar, son of Fahimuddin Ansari 4. Istiaque Ahmad, son of Fahimuddin Ansari 5. Imtiaz Alam @ Imtiaz Ahmad, son of Fahimuddin Ansari 6. Hamida Khatoon, w/o Fahimuddin Ansari 7. Sakina Khatoon @ Sakina Parveen, d/o. Fahimuddin Ansari 8. Ashma Khatoon d/o. Fahimuddin Ansari, All resident of Navi Nagar, Police Station Dulhin Bazar, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Shabnam Parwin, w/o Hafiz Parwez and d/o. Dr.Md.Zaramuddin Ansari, resident of village Navi Nagar, Police Station Dulhin Bazar, District Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indra Mohan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.K.Singh No.1, APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN) 5 02-02-2012 1. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.6.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Rev. No. 308/2010 affirming the order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 449 (c ) of 2002 refusing to discharge the petitioners in connection with offences under [STATUTE] . 2. According to the complaint filed by the O.P. No. 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34660 of 2010 (5) dt.02-02-2012 2 her marriage with the petitioner no. 2 was solemnized in 1995. After the birth of two daughters from the wedlock it is alleged that the petitioners started harassing and assaulting the complainant and a demand of Rs.20,000/- was also made to cover the expenses over the daughters. It is further alleged that the husband even entered into a second marriage in the year 2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the case would be an abuse of the process of law. It is pointed out that the complaint on the face of it is absurd and untenable in view of the fact that petitioner no. 5 (brother-in-law) and petitioner nos. 7 and 8 (sisters-in-law) were both minors and it is hardly likely that the allegations of assault and demand for money could be attributed to them on the ground that the complainant had not produced a son. It is further pointed out that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed, taking note of the fact that the witnesses mentioned in the complaint petition had not been examined rather the statements of various other witnesses who have deposed subsequently have been referred to. It is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34660 of 2010 (5) dt.02-02-2012 3 also pointed out that the marriage had been solemnized as far back as in 1995. It is stated with reference to paragraph 8 of the complaint petition that the petitioner no. 1 is ready to keep the complainant. It has also been submitted that neither the complaint petition nor the statements of the witnesses reveal any specific particulars about the alleged second marriage of the petitioner no. 2 whatsoever. 4. Notices were issued to the O.P. No. 2 which were treated as validly served, but no-one appears on her behalf. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances in totality and in particular that the petitioner no. 1 (father-in- law of the complainant) is ready to keep the complainant and also that petitioner nos. 5, 7 and 8 are minors, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution against the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 to 8 ought not be allowed to proceed further. Accordingly, the order dated 24.6.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Rev. No. 308/2010 as also the order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 449 (c) of 2002 as regards the criminal proceeding against these petitioner nos. 1 and 3 to 8 are hereby quashed. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34660 of 2010 (5) dt.02-02-2012 4 6. As regards petitioner no. 2 (husband), however, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage and this petition in so far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned stands rejected. 7. This application accordingly stands disposed of. Chandran (Vikash Jain, 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.