Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6543 of 2011 ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, resident of village Savitri Sadan, Shri Krishnapuri, New Area Nawada, P.S. Nawada, Dist. Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Jyoti Kumari @ Soni w/o Mithilesh Kumar, resident of Krishna Apartment, Anand Vihar J-4, Murgasol, Asansol, Behind International Hotel, Distt. Vardhman (W.B.) At present residing at C/o Ram Niwas Sharma, Vill. Bakhtiarpur, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, Dist. Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11 23-04-2012 Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who was assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1/State of Bihar and Shri Anant Kumar Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/opposite party no.2. The sole petitioner, who is husband of the informant, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6543 of 2011 (11) dt.23-04-2012 2 / 19 2 11.1.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh in Bakhtiarpur P.S. Case No.162 of 2006, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of entire prosecution in the said case. Shri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of cognizance as well as assailing entire prosecution, has firstly argued that the learned Magistrate was not having territorial jurisdiction to try the case and order of cognizance is without jurisdiction. He submits that in the F.I.R. itself, there was disclosure by the informant that marriage in between the petitioner and the informant was solemnized at Deoghar, which is out of State of Bihar and subsequently, after marriage, the informant with petitioner was residing at Asansol and all Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6543 of 2011 (11) dt.23-04-2012 3 / 19 3 the allegations of atrocity indicates that same was done in Asansol and as such the case was to be initiated within the jurisdiction of Asansol not in a court at Barh. In support of his argument that on lack of territorial jurisdiction, a court can not proceed he has relied on AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4286 (Y. Abraham Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai). He has referred to paragraphs 11 and 19 of the said judgment. He has also relied on AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2666 (Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan). In the said case, he has referred to paragraph- 4. He further submits that allegation made in the F.I.R. appears to be not believable and improbable and on this ground also, the entire proceeding is liable to be set aside. He further submits that misuse of provision under [STATUTE] has been noticed by apex court, time without number, and it has been deprecated, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6543 of 2011 (11) dt.23-04-2012 4 / 19 4 particularly in 2010 Criminal Law Journal (SC) 4303 (Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, relying on AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1489 (State of Karnataka Vs. L. Munsi Swami). He submits that the prosecution in the present case is liable to be set aside, since there is no corroborative material collected during the investigation of the case. Of course, in the F.I.R., it was alleged that part of the cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of Barh Court, but said fact was not corroborated during investigation, which is evident from the statement of father recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has referred to Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit, which is a photo copy of paragraph-6 of purported case diary. Lastly it was argued that if there is bleak chance of conviction, then in that event, criminal proceeding should be set aside even at initial stage of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6543 of 2011 (11) dt.23-04-2012 5 / 19 5 a case. On this point, he has heavily relied on AIR 1988 Supreme Court 709 (Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chadrojirao Angre and others). On the question of improbability of the allegation, he has relied on AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others) particularly, paragraph 108(5) and 108(7) of the said judgment. He submits that after going through the allegations made in the said F.I.R., it can be inferred that the offence was not probable and on this ground also, the entire proceeding is liable to be set aside. At the time of hearing, he admits that after cognizance the case has not proceeded. Shri Bhaskar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that allegation made in the F.I.R. itself Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6543 of 2011 (11) dt.23-04-2012 6 / 19 6 indicates that prima facie case is made out. He further submits that the allegation made by the informant was thoroughly investigated by the police and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, on the basis of materials available in the case diary as well as charge sheet, has passed the impugned order of cognizance which requires no interference. He submits that while the petitioner, after the order of cognizance, had approached this Court for grant of bail a Bench of this Court, by its order dated 19.4.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11061 of 2011 has granted privilege of bail to the petitioner on submission made by both the parties that steps shall be taken for settling the dispute between the parties. He submits that this Court, while granting bail, had directed the court below for fixing a date for reconcil

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.