Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3870 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Lochan Kumar, son of Sitaram Yadav. 2. Sitaram Yadav, son of Ramautar Yadav 3. Dilbasiya Devi, wife of Sitaram Yadav 4. Renu Kumari, wife of Sitaram Yadav 5. Surendra Yadav, son of Rampati 6. Archana Devi, wife of Surendra Yadav 7. Mohan Yadav, son of Ramautar Yadav 8. Jasu Devi, daughter of Mohan Yadav 9. Dharmendra Yadav, son of Mohan Yadav 10. Sudha Devi, son of Mohan Yadav 11. Mithilesh Yadav, son of Shivpujan Yadav 12. Budhiya Devi, wife of Mithilesh Yadav. 13. Raj Kumari Devi, wife of Shivpujan Yadav 14. Guddu Yadav, son of Shivpujan Yadav. 15. Shyamnandan Yadav, son of late Dukharan Yadav 16. Deolasiya Devi, wife of Shyamnandan Yadav 17. Rajendra Yadav, son of Shyamnandan Yadav 18. Jhaman Yadav, son of late Ram Lakshman Yadav 19. Hiramani Devi, wife of Jhaman Yadav 20. Usha Devi, wife of Kapildeo Yadav. 21. Pintu Yadav, son of Jhaman Yadav 22. Pappu Yadav, son of Yodha Yadav 23. Rajkaliya Devi, wife of Nageshwar Yadav 24. Nagesgwar Yadav, son of Sitaram Yadav. All above rresidents of village Umrai Bigha, P.S. Makhdumpur (Tehta P.O.), Distt. Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Janti Devi @ Jayanti Devi, wife of Lakhan Yadav, resident of village Umrai Bigha, P.S. Makhdumpur, Distt. Jehanabad .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. B.M. Pd. Sinha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 4. 17-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek quashing of the entire Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3870 of 2009 (4) dt.17-04-2011 2 / 3 2 proceeding including the order dated 15.10.2008 passed in Trial No. 1210 of 2008, Complaint Case No. 568 of 2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad, has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant and the petitioners are close relations and she had earlier filed a case under [STATUTE] against some of the accused persons vide Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 262 of 2004. On the date of occurrence, the accused persons allegedly came to her house and threatened her to settle the 498A matter and also looted away the property from her house. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that three cases have been filed by the Complainant and her relations mainly on account of the Matrimonial dispute that had occurred between the Complainant and her husband. The petitioners being relatives of her husband has been unnecessarily roped in the present case without any fault with absurd allegations. On the last occasion, notices were issued to the Opposite party No. 2 but she has chosen not to appear before this Court despite receipt of notices. Having gone through the Complaint, I am of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3870 of 2009 (4) dt.17-04-2011 3 / 3 3 view that the present Complaint instituted against 24 persons set in the background of the earlier Matrimonial dispute appears to be absurd and vague and instituted only with a view to wreak vengeance upon the accused persons who are relatives of her husband. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 15.10.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad, in connection with Trial No. 1210 of 2008 arising out of Complaint Case No. 568 of 2006 is hereby quashed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, 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.