Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.50052 of 2008 ====================================================== Dr.Mathura Prasad, S/o Late Ram Dahin Sah, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Road No.3, P.S. Kadam Kuan, Distt. Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Shyamla Gupta D/o Dr. D.D. Gupta, R/o Chailitar, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 02-03-2012 Heard Shri Surendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri Alamdar Hussain, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 25.10.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in G.R. Case No.1283 of 2002, arising out of Alamganj P.S. Case No.225 of 2002. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50052 of 2008 (5) dt.02-03-2012 2 / 7 2 the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that there is no evidence to implicate the petitioner. In the present case, petitioner was simply a mediator for settling the marriage. Even after the marriage, divorce in between the parties had already taken place, but since the petitioner was mediator, he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner was not at all related with the inlaws family of the informant of the present case and as such [STATUTE] is not at all applicable. It has further been submitted that in the entire case diary, there is no material to implicate the petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate, without appreciating those materials in a mechanical manner, has rejected the discharge petition. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50052 of 2008 (5) dt.02-03-2012 3 / 7 3 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He has firstly submitted that the petitioner in the petition before this Court has made false statement to the extent that despite the fact, while rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner against the order of cognizance, this court had directed that entire material can be considered at the time of trial. The petitioner has made a false statement that while dismissing the said petition, by order dated 20.11.2007, this Court observed that petitioner may raise all the points at the time of framing charge. He further submits that the order of cognizance, which was passed on 17.6.2006 was challenged by the petitioner vide Criminal Misc. No.33608 of 2006, but same was dismissed by this Court on 20.11.2007. The order has been brought on record as Annexure-1A at pages 30-32. It was further submitted that during the pendency of this petition, charges were already framed and altogether four witnesses have already been examined. This fact has not been disputed by Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50052 of 2008 (5) dt.02-03-2012 4 / 7 4 learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it has been prayed to dismiss the present petition. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the record, it appears that initially the petitioner along with others was made F.I.R. named accused. After investigation, police exonerated the petitioner and charge sheet was submitted against other accused persons. However, the learned Magistrate, differing with the police report, took cognizance even against the petitioner, which order was assailed before this Court and this Court keeping in view the fact that no reason was assigned in the order of taking cognizance, set aside the order of first cognizance i.e. order dated 5.9.2003 passed by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No.28759 of 2003 on 24.11.2005 and matter was remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate again passed order of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50052 of 2008 (5) dt.02-03-2012 5 / 7 5 cognizance on 17.6.2006, which was again assailed by the petitioner vide Cr. Misc. No.33608 of 2006. However, by assigning detailed reason, this Court, by its order dated 20.11.2007, dismissed the same. While dismissing, this Court categorically observed that “as from the F.I.R., it appears that there is allegation against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the demand of dowry and the learned Magistrate has found sufficient material in the case diary in support of the same, there appears no reason to quash the impugned order. The truth or falsity of the allegation could be considered at the stage of trial” and the petition was dismissed. At the stage of charge, petition for discharge was filed by the petitioner, which was rejected and same order has been impugned before this Court. It is true that present petition was filed on 5.12.2008. It is admitted by the parties that during the pendency of this petition, charges were framed and four witnesses have already been examined. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50052 of 2008 (5) dt.02-03-2012 6 / 7 6 I have also perused the impugned order, which assigns a detailed reason. It was not a case only for the offence under [STATUTE] , but also for the offence under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act categorically prescribes that even a person, who abates in commission of offence regarding demand of dowry can be proceeded under Section 3 of the Act. So the plea of the petitioner that he was not related with the inlaws family of the informant has got no relevance at the moment. However, Mr. Alamdar Hussain, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has arg

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.