Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24463 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Sunaina Singh, Wife of Harishankar Singh. 2. Chandrasan Singh @ Chandrashu Singh, daughter of Hari Shankar Singh. 3. Arun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Surya Singh. All resident of village – Teluha, Police Station – Nawtan, District – West Champaran (Bettiah) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Krishna Devi Wife of Hari Shankar Singh. Resident of Village – Rupanchhap, Police Station - Barauli, District – Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 14-05-2012 Heard Sri Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Lokesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Pranoti Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 1 / State of Bihar and Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 05.03.2009 passed by Sri Mritunjay Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Complaint Case No. 1001 of 2008. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24463 of 2009 (5) dt.14-05-2012 2 / 7 2 entire criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case. By the said order learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . In this case, earlier, by order dated 29.09.2010, while directing for issuance of notice to opposite party no. 2, this court had directed for staying further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1001 of 2008 (Trial No. 2283 of 2009). Learned senior counsel while assailing the order of cognizance as well as initiation of proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1001 of 2008, submits that the present complaint petition was got filed by the husband of the petitioner no. 1 against whom petitioner no. 1 had earlier filed a complaint case on 31.05.2007, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 1191(C) of 2007, for offence under Sections 498(A) & 494 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that in the complaint petition lodged by the petitioner no. 1 i.e. Complaint Case No. 1191(C) of 2007, it was specifically alleged that during the life time of first wife, the husband of the petitioner no. 1 had developed illicit relation with the complainant / opposite party no. 2, and subsequently, he solemnized second marriage, which was void ab initio. He Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24463 of 2009 (5) dt.14-05-2012 3 / 7 3 further submits that besides filing complaint petition, the petitioner no. 1 had also filed a case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for directing her husband to maintain the petitioner no. 1, which was numbered as Maintenance Case No. 101(M) of 2007 in the Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah. In the Maintenance Case the husband of the petitioner no. 1, who has kept the complainant / opposite party no. 2 illegally as wife, appeared on 26.02.2008 and filed show cause. After noticing the fact that cases were filed by the petitioner no. 1 against Harishankar Singh (husband of petitioner no. 1), her husband, in calculated manner, got the present complaint petition filed against the petitioner no. 1, her daughter, who is petitioner no. 2, and petitioner no. 3. The reason for filing the complaint petition was to put pressure on the petitioner no. 1 and to forbid her from pursuing either complaint case which was filed earlier against her husband as well as maintenance case. On the aforesaid ground it has been prayed for setting aside the order of cognizance in the present case as well as entire criminal proceeding. He further submits that allegation made in the complaint petition appears to be not tenable in the eye of law. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24463 of 2009 (5) dt.14-05-2012 4 / 7 4 Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for complainant / opposite party no. 2, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. At the very outset he submits that since in the complaint petition the learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry has taken cognizance of the offence, this court may not exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in interfering with the said order. He submits that time without number it has been held that power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases. He has further argued that only on the ground of hostility neither prosecution nor order of cognizance can be set aside. In support of his argument he has heavily relied on a judgment of this court reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 1029 (Ram Sajjan Sah & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.). On aforesaid ground he submits that the petition is required to be rejected. In reply Sri Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel, has argued that right from the R.P. Kapur’s Case [AIR 1960 SC 866 (V 47 C 147) R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab] it has been held that if the court is fully satisfied regarding malicious nature of the prosecution, this court, even while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24463 of 2009 (5) dt.14-05-2012 5 / 7 5 of Criminal Procedure can interfere with the proceedings. He has specifically relied on AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others). He has referred paragraph no. 108 of the said judgment and submits that in a case of malicious prosecution it can be interfered with even at initial stage Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. After hearing the parties it is evident that the petitioner no. 1 was married with Harishankar Singh in the year 1983. Subsequently, her

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.