Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25676 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Basudeo Sharma Son of Late Dashrath Sharma 2. Chandra Prakash Sharma @ C.P. Sharma , Son of Late Ram Bilash Sharma 3. Chhaya Priti @ Chhaya Devi W/O Sri Chandra Prakash Sharma 4. Renu Sharma W/O Sri Basudeo Sharma All residents of Mohalla- Rahamganj, P.S. Laheria Sarai, District- Darbhanga, at present residing at 522 Behala Diamond Habard Road ( D.H. Road ), Kolkata-34 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ram Charitra Paswan, Retired Junior Engineer, Indian Railway, Muzaffarpur, Son of Late Sonu Paswan R/O Village- Hasanpur Jitwarpur, P.S. Samastipur, District-Samastipur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -------------------- 4 20-04-2012 Today again on call, none appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. On earlier occasion also, none had appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.2, which is evident from the order dated 12.04.2012. On last occasion only due to non-appearance of Opp.Party no.2, the case was adjourned. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Harendra Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 17.03.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25676 of 2009 (4) dt.20-04-2012 2 / 4 2 Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case no.C-165 of 2008, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of order dated 02.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr.Revision No.99 of 2008, whereby the revision preferred against the order of cognizance dated 19.03.2008 has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order of cognizance and order of the revisional court as well as very initiation of proceeding in the said complaint, has argued that the present complaint was got filed by the husband of daughter of petitioner no.1 in a well designed manner. It was submitted that the daughter of petitioner no.1 after being mentally and physically tortured by her husband , namely, Dilip Kumar Sharma filed a complaint petition vide Complaint Case no. 2952 of 2007 on 24.12.2007. After conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence in the complaint case filed by daughter of petitioner no.1 on 14.02.2008. He submits that with a view to put pressure in the complaint case earlier filed by daughter of petitioner no.1, the present case was got filed by the husband Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25676 of 2009 (4) dt.20-04-2012 3 / 4 3 through the present complaint , namely, Ram Charitra Paswan on unsustainable ground. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument has specially relied on the averment made in Annexure-1 i.e. copy of the complaint petition, which states that on 25.12.2007, the complainant , namely, Ram Charitra Paswan , who was closely associated with the accused in Complaint Case no.2952 of 2007 tried to intervene in the dispute in between the daughter of petitioner no.1 and her husband and thereafter certain allegations were levelled against the entire family members of the daughter of petitioner no.1 . This fact has been specifically corroborated in the complaint petition itself. After going through the contents of the present complaint, which is indicative of the fact that whatever allegation has been made, was made in respect of settling the dispute in earlier complaint petition, prima facie, it is evident that the present complaint was got intentionally filed to put pressure in the complaint petition filed by daughter of petitioner no.1 On going through the materials available on record the Court is satisfied that the present proceeding was initiated maliciously, which requires interference at the initial stage. Allowing such prosecution will amount to allow abuse of process of the court. To prevent abuse of the process of the court, it is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25676 of 2009 (4) dt.20-04-2012 4 / 4 4 necessary to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, both the order of cognizance dated 17.03.2009 passed in Complaint Case no.C-165/2008 and revisional court order dated 02.12.2008 passed in Cr. Revision no.99/2008 as well as entire proceeding in complaint case are hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.