Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38614 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Lalni Kant Jha S/o Late Diwakar Jha. 2. Brajesh Kumar Jha S/O Lalni Kant Jha 3. Dilip Kumar Jha son of Lalni Kant Jha 4. Meena Devi W/O Lalni Kant Jha 5. Santosh Kumar Mishra S/o Binod Nath Mishra 6. Rupam Mishra @ Deji Mishra W/o Santosh Mishra Petitioner No.1 to 4 are resident of Bhuli Block ‘D’, Ch. No. 125, P.S.- Bhuli, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) and petitioner nos. 5 to 6 resident of Bhuli Block ‘C’, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, P.S. Bhuli, District- Dhanbad. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Bandana Jha D/O Vinodanand Jha, Emergency Colony, Qr. No. 727/B, Katihar, District Katihar. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha. For the Informant-O.P.No.2 : M/S P.K. Jaipuriyar & Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocates. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pronoti Singh, Addl. P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 15-05-2012 Heard the parties. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to invoke its inherent powers for quashing the order dated 26.04.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Katihar in connection with Katihar Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38614 of 2010 (3) dt.15-05-2012 2 / 3 2 Town(S) P.S. Case No. 263 of 2008, whereby cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] as also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken and summons/ notices have been issued against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.2 happens to be the husband of the informant, i.e. Opposite Party No.2, and petitioner nos. 1 and 3 to 6 are her in-laws. It is contended that the order taking cognizance and consequential criminal prosecution should be quashed on the ground of being malicious criminal prosecution against the petitioners and secondly the petitioner no.2 is prepared to restore his matrimonial relationship with the informant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010)7 SCC 667. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, and the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 have strongly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. According to them, no material has been produced by the petitioners to demonstrate that the present case is a malicious prosecution against the petitioners. It is also contended that the claim made by petitioner No.2 that he is prepared to restore his matrimonial relationship with O.P. No. 2 also stand falsified in view of the fact that he is not prepared to abide by the terms and conditions put by this Court, while granting him provisional anticipatory bail by order dated 14.12.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39399 of 2009. After having heard the parties, this Court finds that there Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38614 of 2010 (3) dt.15-05-2012 3 / 3 3 is no denial of relationship of wife and husband between the informant and petitioner no.2. The factum of marriage has not at all been disputed by any of the petitioners. On plain perusal of the F.l.R. vide Annexure-1, prima facie offences alleged appear to have been committed by the accused persons. The petitioners have failed to bring any material on record to show that this was a case of malicious prosecution. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta (Supra), will not enure the petitioners in the present case. The fact situation in the present case is different, and therefore, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in that case will not apply in the present criminal prosecution. This Court does not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, the application stands dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

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.