Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14316 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Sri Chamari Chaudhary, Son of Late Dahu Chaudhary 2. Smt. Kari Devi, wife of Sri Chamari Chaudhary, Both resident of village Dowearapar Nawadah, P.S. Bundelkhand, District Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Aarti Devi @ Reena Kumar, Daughter of Man Mohan Chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla – Sahmir Takia, Police Station Civil Lines, District Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s with Criminal Miscellaneous No.7485 of 2009 1. Om Prakash Choudhary @ Musan Pasi S/o Chamari Choudhary 2. Vinod Kumar Choudhary S/o Chamari Choudhary 3. Pramod Kumar Choudhary @ Timal Pasi S/o Chamari Chaudhary 4. Manju Devi @ Buti Pasin W/o Om Prakash Chaudhary 5. Sita Kiran Choudhary @ Sita Kiran Devi W/o Vinod Kumar. 6. Kirti Prakash @ Rinki Kumari D/o Om Prakash Choudhary All residents of village Dowrapar, P.S. Bundelkhand, District Nawadah. 7. Shusheela Devi wife of Munni Lal Choudhary, Resident of Icchapur Near Railway Station, P.S. Icchapur, District- 24 Pargana (W.B.). 8. Sanjit Kumar Choudhary S/o- Surendra Prasad Choudhary, Resident of village Giriyak, P.S. Giriyak, District Nalanda (Biharsharif). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Arti Devi @ Reena Kumari, D/o. Man Mohan Choudhary, Resident of Mohalla Sahmir Takia, P.S. Civil Lines, District Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 18-04-2012 Both the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise out of the same order and as such both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14316 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 2 / 19 2 by this common order. Heard Shri Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Shri Rakesh Kuamr Sinha No.1, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1/State and Shri Manish Kumar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2/complainant. In both the cases, petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated 19.1.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No.338 of 2004/445 of 2009. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of accused petitioners for their discharge. Learned Senior Counsel for the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14316 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 3 / 19 3 petitioners, while assailing the order, submits that with an oblique motive, complainant/opposite party no.2 has arrayed all the family members of her husband as accused in the complaint case without disclosing specific allegation against either of the petitioners of both the petitions. Cr. Misc. No.14316 of 2009 has been preferred by father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant whereas eight petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.7485 of 2009 are close relative of the husband of the complainant. The husband of the complainant is not a party in aforesaid petitions. It was submitted by Shri Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that only on general and omnibus allegation, the court below may not be allowed to proceed with the case. He submits that partition in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14316 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 4 / 19 4 between the family of husband of the complainant with their other family members, had already taken place long back and husband of the complainant was residing separately. Even then in the complaint petition, all the family members have been made accused. On the ground of general and omnibus allegation, it has been prayed to set aside the order of rejection of discharge petition. He submits that time without number, the apex court has deprecated prosecution under [STATUTE] . In support of his argument, he has referred to judgments reported in 2009(10) SCC 184 (Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti) as well as 2010(7) SCC 667 (Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another). It was submitted that in both the cases, other family members were made accused on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14316 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 5 / 19 5 general and omnibus allegation and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while deprecating such prosecution, has set aside the entire prosecution against family members of the husband of the complainant of the said cases. Learned Senior Counsel has further relied on A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 709 (Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another etc. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others). He has specifically referred to paragraph-7 of the aforesaid judgment. For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to quote paragraph-7, which is as follows : “7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14316 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 6 / 19 6 to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14316 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 7 / 19 7 to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” He submits that in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia‟s case (Supr

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.