Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12781 of 2010 (7) dt.25-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12781 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Mahendra Narayan Jha @ Pal Babu, S/O-Late Baidyanath Jha 2. Laxmi Devi, W/O-Mahendra Narayan Jha 3. Rajiv Jha, S/O-Mahendra Narayan Jha 4. Rani Devi, D/O-Mahendra Narayan Jha, W/O-Rakesh Mishra All resident of village-Ghoghardiha, P.S.-Ghoghardiha, Dist-Madhubani 5. Bhola Jha, S/O-Puranji Jha, resident of village-Gajhara, P.S.-Ladaniya, Dist-Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Neelam Devi, W/O-Mohan Mishra, resident of village-Bela Nahari, P.S.-Khutauna, Dist-Madhubani .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Thakur For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Jha Mr. Anant Kr. Bhaskar. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 7 25-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission and in my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 11.03.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani in Complaint Case No. 522 of 2008 by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] ordered to issue summons to procure the attendance of the petitioners. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12781 of 2010 (7) dt.25-09-2012 The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that on 17.06.2008, Opposite Party No. 2 filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 522 of 2008 against the petitioners alleging therein, inter alia, that in the night between 09/10.06.2008 petitioners assaulted her and took her ornaments and other belongings. It would appear that the aforesaid complaint case was enquired and having conducted an enquiry prima facie case under [STATUTE] was found against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 4 is own daughter-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2 and petitioner no. 1 and 2 are parents whereas petitioner no. 3 is brother of petitioner no. 4 and similarly, petitioner no. 5 is maternal brother of petitioner no. 4. It is further contended by him that as a matter of fact, on 10.06.2008 petitioner no. 4 gave her Ferdbeyan at her matrimonial home against her in laws and on the basis of aforesaid Ferdbeyan, Laukaha (Khutauna) P.S. Case No. 79 of 2008 for the offences under [STATUTE] was registered against Opposite Party No. 2 and others and in retaliation of the aforesaid case, the Opposite Party No. 2 has brought the present case and, therefore, the aforesaid fact clearly goes to show the false implication of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12781 of 2010 (7) dt.25-09-2012 petitioners in the present case. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that the Ferdbeyan of petitioner no. 4 was recorded on 10.06.2008 at about 04:30 P.M. and the distance between matrimonial home as well as natal place of petitioner no. 4 is within 8 km. and, therefore, it was not difficult for the petitioners to return at the matrimonial home after committing the crime in night between 09/10.06.2008. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record. It would appear from perusal of Annexure-2 to this petition that Ferdbeyan of petitioner no. 4 was recorded on 10.06.2008 at about 04:30 P.M. in presence of Opposite Party No. 2 as well as her husband. The aforesaid Ferdbeyan was recorded at her matrimonial home and I do agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the present case is glaring example of misuse of process of the court. It is well settled principle of law that this Court can exercise its power vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it is found that any case has been lodged to settle the personal score or to seek personal vendetta. In my view, the present case i.e. Complaint Case No. 522 of 2008 is nothing but only an abuse of process of the court because according to aforesaid complaint case, the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12781 of 2010 (7) dt.25-09-2012 petitioners had already left the house of Opposite Party No. 2 but when on the very next day i.e. on 10.06.2008 police reached at the house of Opposite Party No. 2, petitioner no. 4 was found present there and the aforesaid fact falsifies the entire contents of Complaint Case No. 522 of 2008. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 11.03.2010 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.03.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani in Complaint Case No. 522 of 2008 is, hereby, quashed. In the aforesaid manner, this quashing petition stands disposed off on admission stage itself. SHAHZAD/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.