Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40216 of 2012 ====================================================== Keshav Prasad Singh, S/O Late Shivlochan Singh, Resident of Village- Ojhwalia, P.S. Kochas, District Rohtas at present residing at Mohalla- Mohanpur, Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Lalita Devi, D/O Late Meghu Singh, (divorced W/O Keshav Prasad Singh) resident of Village- Kamhari, P.S. Kurdhani (Ramgarh), District- Kaimur at Bhabhua. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 02-11-2012 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a complaint case in which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and both remained together for some time but no issue was born out of the wedlock. Subsequently, the petitioner developed intimacy with one Kanti Singh who subsequently became the Central Minister and consequently married with her when the consent of the complainant was obtained on the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40216 of 2012 (2) dt.02-11-2012 2 / 5 2 ground that the complainant has no issue and if the complainant will raise the issue, the petitioner will loose his job and subsequently the complainant was driven out from her matrimonial house after inflicting torture. After examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and witnesses, the order of cognizance was passed. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was married with the complainant in the year 1959 and got married with Kanti Singh in 1972, when the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 23.07.1971 vide Title Suit No. 07 of 1971 as contained in Annexure-2. The decree of the Title Suit has not been challenged by the complainant till date. Subsequent to the decree of divorce, the complainant was given gift of 5 ½ Bighas of land by way of registered deed of gift executed by the uncle of the petitioner Bishuni Singh in the year 1972 in favour of the complainant, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit. Moreover, the petitioner filed an affidavit before the learned Sessions Judge, during pendency of the anticipatory bail application, wherein in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40216 of 2012 (2) dt.02-11-2012 3 / 5 3 paragraph nos. 1 to 5 he shown his willingness to still pay a meager amount on humanitarian ground and he never undertook to make payment of Rs. Fifty Lacs which is an error of record in the impugned order. The said application has been brought on record as Annexure-3. The paragraph no. 5 of the same reads as follows:- “That, it is brought to the kind notice of this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner is a retired person and has suffered serious operations and presently also has to meet huge expenses on his medicines. Apart from it, the complainant Lalita Devi is a divorcee aged about 70 years and has also substantive landed property. Whatever meager amount will be paid by the petitioner will be paid on humanitarian ground only.” The petitioner during pendency of anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions judge paid an amount of Rs. Two Lacs Fifty Thousand to the complainant. Though the present complaint has been filed after 38-40 years of cause of action. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner filed a Cr. Misc. application being Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40216 of 2012 (2) dt.02-11-2012 4 / 5 4 Cr. Misc. No. 39234 of 2009 for quashing of the order of cognizance including the complaint petition, which stood dismissed since the decree of divorce was passed ex-parte. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that notices were issued in the matrimonial suit to the complainant when she chose not to appear. Further, it appears from the impugned order that the learned Sessions judge, rejected the anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to make payment of Rs. Forty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand as against the undertaking of payment of Rs. Fifty Lacs. The petition with regard to making payment as contained in Annexure-3 as quoted above, does not reflect any undertaking of giving Rs. Fifty Lacs. Considering the same and the fact that decree of divorce was passed in the year 1971 and the same has not been challenged and the present complaint has been filed in 2009, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with Complaint Case No. 188 of 2009 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40216 of 2012 (2) dt.02-11-2012 5 / 5 5 Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U.K./- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.