Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8321 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Tarachand Gupta, son of Kishun Prashad Gupta 2. Sushila Devi , wife of Tarachand Gupta 3. Manoj Kumar , son of Tarachand Gupta All Residents Of Village- Barauli, P.O. & P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Arti Devi, wife of Manoj Kumar, resident of village Barauli, P.O. & P.S. – Barauli, District - Gopalganj, presently residing at Ratan Sarai Malikana, P.O. & P.S. -Barauli, District - Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 05-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 20.7.2010 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Complaint Case No. 336 of 2010, Tr. No. 3153 of 2010. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order of cognizance submits that the order of cognizance is liable Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8321 of 2011 (4) dt.05-11-2012 2/ 3 to be set aside on three grounds. Firstly, there is no specific accusation against the petitioners; secondly, partition had already taken place by the order of Permanent Lok Adalat and thirdly, it has been argued that a suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by the petitioner no. 3 (husband of the complainant / opposite party no. 2). On aforesaid grounds he has prayed for setting aside the order of cognizance. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I have also perused the materials available on record including the complaint petition. In the present case save and except filing of the present petition petitioners have not brought on record either affirmation of the complainant on oath or deposition of any of the witnesses examined during the enquiry. There was allegation against the accused persons. The complaint was filed against seven accused persons. However, after conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence only against the husband of the complainant, who is petitioner no. 3, father - in - law and mother - in- law i.e. petitioner no. 1 & 2 respectively. Prima facie on perusal of the order of cognizance, I do not find any defect. So far as plea of partition taken by learned counsel for petitioners is concerned, from perusal of Annexure - ‘3’ i.e. order of Permanent Lok Adalat, it is evident Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8321 of 2011 (4) dt.05-11-2012 3/ 3 that order was passed in the month of May, 2009. In the complaint petition period of offence has been mentioned from 28.3.2008 till the date of filing of the complaint petition. So on the ground of decree or order of partition, no benefit can be given to the petitioners. So far as filing of divorce case is concerned, the court is of the opinion that it is no ground for interference with the order of cognizance. Regarding prima facie case, the court is satisfied with the materials available on record. I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance. The petition stands dismissed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.