Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12299 of 2012 (4) dt.12-05-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12299 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Manoj Kumar Sinha S/O Sri Braj Nandan Prasad 2. Santosh Kumar Sinha @ Pappu Sinha 3. Srimati Mala Sinha W/O Sri Braj Nandan Pd. Sinha 4.Srimati Mamta Shrivastav @ Minu D/O Sri Braj Nandan Pd. Sinha 5.Madhu Sinha W/O Sri Santosh Kumar Sinha All resident of Hanuman Kutir, Rajni Chowk, P.S.- K.Hat District- Purnia .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Anima Kumari Sinha W/O Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D/O Sri Sohan Prasad Sinha Resident of Subhas Nagar, Near Brilliant Point School, P.S.- K.Hat, District- Purnia .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance: For the petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate Mrs Anju Narain, Advocate For the opposite party no.2 Mr. N.K.Agarwal, Advocate For the State: Mr Ram Naresh Roy, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 4 20-06-2012 1. This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by Sri Ajay Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Purnia in Complaint Case no. 605/2002 by which and whereunder he rejected the petition dated 16.11.2010 filed on behalf of petitioners for their discharge from the above stated case. 2. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that opposite party no.2, namely, Anima Kumari Sinha filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case no. 605/2002 on 10.6.2002 against the petitioners and one Braj Nandan Prasad Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12299 of 2012 (4) dt.12-05-2012 2 Sinha @ Braj Nandan Prasad alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner no.1 on 20.6.1995 according to Hindu rites and customs but before solemnization of marriage, accused Braj Nandan Prasad Sinha, father of petitioner no.1, demanded Rs one lakh as dowry and after that her father any- how managed Rs 71,000/- and handed over the same to him and only thereafter, marriage could be solemnized on the condition of fulfillment of the rest amount within three months. After marriage, she went to her in-laws house but she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for bringing colour TV and cash of Rs 29,000/-. She informed her father and brother as well as other relatives regarding ill-treatment and cruelty subjected to her by her in-laws. Lastly on 9.12.1995, she was driven out by her in-laws from her matrimonial home and she came to her parental home. After the aforesaid incident, petitioner no.2, who happens to be her dewar, continued his regular visit to her parental home and assured the entire family members that the matter would be settled up very soon. Her father tried to patch up the dispute by sending her to her in-laws house several times but she was not allowed to remain at her matrimonial home. A panchyati was also held to solve the dispute of the parties but her in-laws were adamant not to allow her to stay at her matrimonial home without fulfillment of the above stated demands. Furthermore, it is alleged that petitioner no.2 on pretext of settlement got written several letters by her and on the assurance of petitioner nos.2 and 5, she again went to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12299 of 2012 (4) dt.12-05-2012 3 her matrimonial home in the month of June, 2000 and lived there for about four days but she was again subjected to cruelty and harassment and ousted from there. She sent a legal notice to petitioner no.1 and after that she filed the above stated case. 3. The above stated case was enquired into and a prima facie case under [STATUTE] was found against the petitioners and co-accused Braj Nandan Prasad Sinha and they were summoned to face trial. 4. Petitioners and the aforesaid co-accused Braj Nandan Prasad Sinha filed criminal revision before the sessions court against the summoning order which was dismissed and thereafter petitioners filed Cr. Misc. no.30975/2004 against the order of the revisional court but the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous case was dismissed by this court vide order dated 24.11.2005 giving liberty to the petitioners to raise their points including point of previous suit at the stage of section 245 of the Cr.P.C with direction to learned trial court to consider the above stated points of the petitioners at the time of framing of the charge. 5. Petitioners filed petition for their discharge before the trial court on 16.11.2010 but the aforesaid petition was dismissed by the learned trial court passing impugned order dated 23.12.2011 against which this quashing petition has been filed. 6. At the time of hearing on the point of admission, opposite party no.2 made her appearance through her counsel and both the parties were heard on the point of admission and with consent of both the parties, this petition is being disposed Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12299 of 2012 (4) dt.12-05-2012 4 off on admission stage itself. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that according to case of opposite party no.2, her marriage was solemnized on 20.6.1995 and she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 9.12.1995 whereas the case has been filed on 10.6.2002 i.e. after seven years of marriage. It is further contended by him that opposite party no.2 hardly stayed at her matrimonial home for the period of six months and after that she left her matrimonial home and started residing at her parental home. It is further pointed by him that petitioner no.1 seeing the conduct and behavior of opposite party no.2 filed matrimonial suit bearing Matrimonial suit no. 14/2002 for a decree of divorce and the aforesaid matrimonial suit was filed by petitioner no.1 on 8.2.2002 and after filing of the aforesaid matrimonial suit when opposite party no.2 got notice of the

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.