Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40960 of 2010 (3) dt.27-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40960 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Sah @ Manoj Sah Swarnkar son of late Ambika Sah. 2. Rama Devi @ Rambha Devi wife of late Ambika Sah. 3. Krishnadeo Sah @ Tunna son of late Ambika Sah. 4. Pawan Sah son of late Ambika Sah. All are residents of Village-Saidpur, P.S.-Mansi, District-Khagaria. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Pawitri Devi wife of Manoj Sah Swarnkar, resident of Village- Saidpur, P.S.-Mansi, District-Khagaria, at present Address: Pawitri Devi Daughter of Ramchandra Sah (Swarnkar), resident of Village-Naokothi, P.S.-Naokothi, District-Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 27-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 16.08.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 2850C of 2009 (T.R. No. 4281/2009) by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, whereby the learned Magistrate has summoned the accused petitioners finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] . The sole argument as advanced on behalf of petitioners is that petitioner no. 1, who is the husband of opposite party no. 2, Pawitri Devi, has already filed Complaint Case No. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40960 of 2010 (3) dt.27-09-2012 1016-C of 2008 against the family members of ‘Mayaka’ of opposite party no. 2 and due to that reason the father of opposite party no. 2 got managed to lodge this false complaint case only to harass the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 are separate with petitioner no. 1, who is said to be the husband of the opposite party no. 2, so they have no concern in the business of petitioner no. 1 and they have falsely implicated in this case only to give undue pressure. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that while in the complaint petition six persons including the petitioners were named but on enquiry the learned Magistrate summoned only the accused-petitioners finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] . I find no illegality amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all defence, raised herein, at appropriate stage in trial Court. Safik/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.