Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17099 of 2011 (3) dt.01-11-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17099 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Badri Mandal S/O Rajeshwar Mandal, R/O Village-Veena Andauli, P.S.- Suapaul, District- Supaul. 2. Dinesh Mandal S/O Rajeshwar Mandal, R/O Village-Veena Andauli, P.S- . Suapaul, District- Supaul. 3. Rajeshwar Mandal S/O Late Gudar Mandal, R/O Village-Veena Andauli, P.S.- Suapaul, District -Supaul. 4. Ratan Devi D/O Rajeshwar Mandal, R/O Village-Veena, Andauli, P.S. Suapaul, District- Supaul. 5. Gouri Devi D/O Rajeshwar Mandal, R/O Village-Veena, Andauli, P.S.- Suapaul, District- Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Lila Devi W/O Badri Prasad Mandal D/O Late Vindeshwari Mandal, R/O Village-Veena Tola Andauli, P.S.-Supaul, Distt.-Supaul, Presently Residing At Village -Dinapatti, P.S.-Pipra, Distt.-Supaul. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhesh Pandey, Adv. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Arun, Adv. For the State : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 01-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 15.3.2011 passed [STATUTE] ‘c’/2009 whereby and whereunder the court below has refused to discharge the petitioners for offence under [STATUTE] . In this case, a complaint has been made that the O.P. No. 2 was married with Badri Prasad Mandal, petitioner No. 1 in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17099 of 2011 (3) dt.01-11-2012 the year 1994 according to Hindu rites and rituals and at the time of marriage substantial gifts were given to the petitioners by the parents of O.P. No. 2. It has been alleged that after she gave a female child having no second child the petitioners changed their attitude and started misbehaving and torturing the O.P.No. 2. It has been alleged that petitioners were not only teasing but were also assaulting the O.P. No. 2, hurling a threat for second marriage of Badri Prasad Mandal, petitioner No. 1. It has further been alleged, on 31/5/2009 at about 8.00 A.M. the accused persons started abusing the O.P. No. 2, asking her to leave the house otherwise the O.P. No. 2 would be killed. It has been alleged that petitioners abused and assaulted the O.P. No. 2 and specific allegation has been made that Badri Prasad Mandal, petitioner No. 1 snatched her box cost of Rs. 15,000/-. It has been alleged that lady accused caught hold the hair of the O.P. No. 2 and other accused persons were tried to persecute the O.P. No. 2 but due to intervention of the neighbours she could save her life. On the basis of the complaint petition the court below took cognizance for offence under [STATUTE] . A discharge application was filed and the same has been rejected as the court below found sufficient materials for Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17099 of 2011 (3) dt.01-11-2012 framing the charge under [STATUTE] . So far the order with respect to the petitioner No. 1, Badri Prasad Mandal and Petitioner No. 3, Rajeshwar Mandal, this Court does not intend to interfere with the order of discharge looking to the nature of allegation and the close relationship with the complainant. So far petitioner No. 2, Dinesh Mandal, petitioner No. 4 Ratan Devi and petitioner No. 5 Gauri Devi are concerned, no specific allegation has been made against them in the complaint petition rather omnibus allegations have been made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 3367 (Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a judicial notice, as a matter of common knowledge, exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The Court has opined, serious relook of the entire provision is warranted. It is high time to take pragmatic steps to make suitable changes in the existing laws. Paras 34 and 35 of the said judgment are as follows:- Para- 34 Before parting with this case we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is a matter of common knowledge Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17099 of 2011 (3) dt.01-11-2012 that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. Para-35 The criminal trial lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering or ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must be take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable chances in the existing laws. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. Dinesh Mandal (petitioner No. 2) is the Devar whereas Ratna Devi (petitioner No. 4) and Gauri Devi (petitioner No. 5) are the married sisters of the petitioner No. 1 have been made accused making exaggerately statement in the complaint petition having no specific allegation and role played by them and accordingly, the aforesaid persons are discharged from this case and the impugned order dated 15.3.2011 arising from Complaint Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17099 of 2011 (3) dt.01-11-2012 Case No. 638 ‘c’/2009 against

Applicable IPC Section: 245

Statute Text:
Section 245 of the Indian Penal Code. Unlawfully taking from a Mint any coining instrument. Whoever, without lawful authority, takes out of any mint, lawfully established in India, any coining tool or instrument, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.