Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.56169 of 2006 =========================================================== 1. Vijay Shankar, Son of Late Gokul Mochi, 2. Ravi Shankar, son of Vijay Shankar, 3. Sheo Kumari Devi, wife of Vijay Shankar, All residents of Quarter No. A/4, Road No. 6, Gardanibagh, P.S.-Gardanibagh, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Pratima Bharti, D/o Pramesh Chandra Das, resident of Mohalla-Mussalahpur, Pramesh Dayal Lane, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Adv. Anita Kumari, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Aditya Sharan, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sharan, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharan, Adv. For the State : Md. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date: 18-6-2012 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Aditya Sharan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Md. Aslam Ansari, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by Sri S.P. Mishra, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in complaint Case No. 2082 (C)/2006 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate finding a prima facie case to be made out under [STATUTE] has directed for issuance of process against them. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56169 of 2006 dt.18.06.2012 2 / 9 2 The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of a complaint instituted by the opposite party no. 2 on 25.7.2006 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The complainant has alleged in the complaint, inter alia, that she was married to petitioner no. 2 on 28.11.2003. Her father had given sufficient gift at the time of marriage but immediately, after the marriage, she was being subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry. She has further alleged that in the month of February, 2004, petitioner no. 1 who is father-in-law of the complainant called upon her parents and she was sent to her parental home, as she was having some abdominal pain. At her parental home, her mother took her to a lady doctor, who upon examination, told that she was pregnant. A message in this regard was sent to the petitioners by her mother. Her husband came to her parental house and on the next day she was brought to her matrimonial home and her pregnancy was got aborted against her will by her husband. It has also been alleged that her husband was having pre-marital relation with a girl and even after marriage their relationship continued. The complainant has further alleged that her signature was taken on blank papers by the accused persons on some pretext or other and those papers were utilized for procuring a decree of divorce. The complainant has further alleged that she was forcibly taken to the Family Court in July, 2005 and under threat she was coerced to state before the Court that she had voluntarily offered for divorce and had signed the divorce petition with consent. She alleges that she was sent to her parental house ultimately on 16.1.2006 and on the very next date, she received a notice through which she came to known that her marriage with petitioner no. 2 got dissolved. On 23.7.2006 at about 7 p.m. petitioner nos. 1 and 2 came to the parental house Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56169 of 2006 dt.18.06.2012 3 / 9 3 of the complainant along with 4-5 unknown persons and they misbehaved with her father. The learned C.J.M., Patna after institution of the complaint made over the case under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the court of Sri S.P. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna, who after recording the statement of the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and deposition of the witnesses examined under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure found a prima facie case to be made out under [STATUTE] against the petitioners and summoned them to face trial by order dated 10.10.2006. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2006. Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is true that the complainant was married to petitioner no. 2 in 2003 but after the marriage, the complainant and her husband realized that it was not possible to continue with the relationship and thus, with consent of parties, matrimonial Case No. 115 of 2004 was filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna for dissolution of the marriage. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna issued notice to the complainant and after service of notice, the complainant and petitioner no. 2 appeared before the court. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna took efforts for re-conciliation but, it failed and thereafter he recorded separate statement of the complainant and the petitioner no. 2 on 8th July, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna by his judgment dated 19.7.2005 allowed the matrimonial suit and held that the parties are entitled to a decree of dissolution of their marriage with mutual consent. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56169 of 2006 dt.18.06.2012 4 / 9 4 I think it proper to quote para 4, 5 & 6 of the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, which reads as follows:- “4. The Court tried to reconcile the parties but the reconciliation failed as the girl admitted that she has some pre-marital affairs with another boy and she wants to marry him after dissolution of marriage. Similar was the v

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.