Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.661 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ranjit Kumar Mandal, son of Sahdeo Mandal, C.No.114, J.E. Shop, F.T.S. Jamalpur, resident of Mohalla-Shastri Nagar, P.S. Kashim Bazar, District- Munger. 2. Yugal Kishroe Yadav, son of Munni Lal Yadav, T. No.24503/Tech.I, D.P.S. Jamalpur, resident of Village and P.O. Bank (Kanchangarh), P.S. Muffasil, District- Munger. 3. Shaktidhar Prasad, son of late Gaya Prasad, T. No. 2091, Tech.II, Shop M.T.S. Jamalpur, resident of Village and P.O. Aura Bagaicha, P.S. Dharhara, District-Munger presently residing at Qr. No.369, Rampur Colony, P.O. and P.S. Jamalpur, District- Munger 4. Deepak Kumar Sinha, son of late Parmeshwar Lal, T. No. 19835, Tech.II/Welding/Jamalpur, resident of Village-Mahmadda, P.O. Patam, P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District-Munger, presently residing at Qr. No.496A, Daulatpur Colony, P.O. and P.S. Jamalpur, District-Munger. 5. Shashank Shekhar Ambasta, son of Sri S.C. Ambasta, T. No.648/Tech I/Vidyut Bibhag Jamalopur, resident of N.C.C. Road, Mundi Chak, District-Bhagalpur, presently residing at Qr. No.525D, Daulatpur Colony, P.O. and P.S. Jamalpur, District-Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radhey Shyam Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY) 2 30-01-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report of East Colony (Jamalpur) P.S. Case No.15 of 2010 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 337, 338, 427, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.661 of 2011 (2) dt.30-01-2012 2 Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984, which has been lodged by one Manoj Kumar, Block Development Officer, Jamalpur. 3. The facts of the case are that one railway employee, namely, Mahendra Mandal met with an accident under the premises of Railway Works Shop, Jamalpur with sand loaded tractor and he died on the spot. On the instruction of the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Munger the informant (Block Development Officer) along with other officials in order to maintain the law and order reached to the factory premises where they have faced 3000-4000 workers and they raised slogans against the railway administration and they were raising grievance that the railway administration used to take work forceably after closing the gate which resulted into accident of the railway workers. The officials tried to cool them down but it has proved to in vain whereafter the mob started pelting stones against the police officials as well as railway administration. It has been further alleged that administration tried to control the mob but the situation has gone out of control. They started breaking the railway property and mob started moving towards the chamber of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.661 of 2011 (2) dt.30-01-2012 3 the authorities of the railway administration. Looking to this situation the Sub Divisional Officer declared the mob as an unlawful assembly and tried to cool them down again but it has not given any effect which led to lathi charge. It has been further alleged that for few minutes the mob withdrew but later on they have again started attack with stones and other materials causing damage to the railway property. It has been further alleged that the police and administrative staffs have also received injuries. Looking to such bad situation the Sub Divisional Officer, Munger directed to use force but by the time large numbers of persons have been injured. The administration tried to pacify the matter and disburse the mob but it has not given any effect which led to using of Tear Gas and firing by the police officials on the direction of the Sub Divisional Officer, Munger. It has been further alleged that the petitioners were identified by official of railway administration and a case has been lodged against them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Block Development Officer was not knowing the name of any person but their names have come at the instance of the railway administration specially Mr. R.B. Mishra, W.P.O. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.661 of 2011 (2) dt.30-01-2012 4 of Munger factory. He further submits that this is the case showing malicious prosecution against the petitioners. The motive for naming the petitioners in the accused is that the petitioners are office bearers of the Trade Union. In the First Information Report no specific allegation has been made, mere the names have been given in the First Information report. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit and others Vs. The State of U.P., reported in 1973 SCC (Cr) 921. It is not a case where First Information Report itself was under consideration before the Court but the matter has gone after conclusion of trial and appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on that consideration this judgment has been passed and as such this judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. Similarly he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parminder Kaur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2010) SCC 322. In this case prosecution was initiated on the basis of the First Information Report with an allegation that they Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.661 of 2011 (2) dt.30-01-2012 5 were unable to look after the property and, therefore, appointed Hargursharan Singh as their general attorney. By virtue of general power of attorney, he sold the aforementio

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.