Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39442 of 2010 ====================================================== Khayali Rai son of Late Jageshwar Rai (Wrongly written in the first information Report as Late Bindeshwar Rai), resident of Mohalla Kazibagh, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 09-05-2012 Heard Shri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Shri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradeep Narayan Kunwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Shri Sanjeev Kuamr, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of the informant. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 24.6.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Alamganj P.S. Case No.93 of 2009, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39442 of 2010 (3) dt.09-05-2012 2 / 3 2 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and directed to summon accused persons including the petitioner differing with the police report whereby the police, after investigation, has not found allegation true against the petitioner. The police had exonerated this petitioner and his two sons. However, the learned Magistrate, differing with the police report, has proceeded only against this petitioner not against two sons of the petitioner, who were exonerated by the police. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation, it had come that petitioner, being public servant on the date of occurrence, was not present at the place of occurrence. Even then the learned Magistrate, without discussing those materials, has passed the impugned order. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39442 of 2010 (3) dt.09-05-2012 3 / 3 3 Learned Senior Counsel admits that some of the witnesses have made statement showing involvement of the petitioner, but fact remains that petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. It is true that the learned Magistrate, differing with the police report, has passed the order of cognizance, but fact remains that the learned Magistrate, while differing, has discussed with the materials collected during investigation and after being satisfied with the materials showing involvement of the petitioner in the case, has passed the impugned order. After going through the impugned order, the court is satisfied that the impugned order does not require any interference. The petition stands dismissed. N.H./- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.