Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14125 of 2010 (4) dt.07-11-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14125 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Md.Abdullah @ Multan, son of late Md. Hamid. 2. Md. Iliash @ Patasi, son of late Md. Hamid. 3. Md. Shaad @ Sadhu, son of late Md. Hamid. 4. Md. Nasim, son of Md. Iliash @ Patasi. 5. Bibi Anuthi @ Kanni, wife of Md. Ilias @ Patasi. All resident of Village-Ababakkarpur, Koshi Nirpur, Police Station- Patepur, District-Vaishali. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Noor Jahan Khatoon, daughter of late Md. Tasauar, resident of Village-Dharampur, Ward No. 1, Police Station-Samastipur, District-Samastipur, at present resident of Village-Chandohaur Mathurapur, Police Station-Ujiarpur, District-Samastipur. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 4 07-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to quash the order dated 19.01.2010 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Samastipur, dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2009 preferred by the accused- petitioners against the order dated 27.03.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1561 of 2004 by the Court of Sri P.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Samastipur, where by the learned Magistrate allowed the petition filed on behalf of complainant/opposite party no. 2 to frame the charge under [STATUTE] also against the accused- Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14125 of 2010 (4) dt.07-11-2012 petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially after enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on filing the complaint petition by opposite party no. 2, Noor Jahan Khatoon, the accused-petitioners were summoned finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] but later on, the application of complainant/opposite party no. 2 was allowed to frame the charge also under [STATUTE] and the learned Sessions Judge also committed error in rejecting the criminal revision preferred by the accused-petitioners against the said order. It is also submitted that in fact the opposite party no. 2 is not the women, so there is no question to perform the marriage with opposite party no. 2. On perusal of the impugned order, I find no any illegality amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all points, 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.