Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.46524 of 2008 ====================================================== Kunal Kaushal @ Barun Kumar, Son of Mohan Pd. Mandal, resident of Nirpur, P.S. Bariyarpur, District-Munger .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sangita Kumari D/O Tanik Lal Singh, resident of Nirpur, P.S. Bariyarpur, District-Munger .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------ 4 14-03-2012 Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vipin Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order, which was passed long back on 07.03.2006 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Complaint Case No.77 C of 2006, whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case was filed in retaliation. It was submitted that prior to filing of the complaint petition, the petitioner had already filed a Divorce Case no.74 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights. It was further submitted that since the present complaint was filed maliciously, this Court is required to interfere with the impugned order. Learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46524 of 2008 (4) dt.14-03-2012 2 / 3 2 counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 2960(S.N.Palanitkar & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.). He submits that the Apex Court has already held that in malicious prosecution, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is required to interfere with the order even at the initial stage. On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned order. Fact remains that Opp.Party no.2 is the wife of the petitioner and her marriage was solemnized in the year 2003. Thereafter, she was tortured physically and mentally by the petitioner and some of the family members of her in-laws. The complainant has given specific dates regarding commission of offences and thereafter, the learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry has passed the impugned order of cognizance. From the impugned order, it does not appear as to whether the prosecution for the alleged occurrence was barred and there is any illegally in the impugned order. So far the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights vide Divorce Case No.74 C of 2006 is concerned, it is evident from Annexure-2 i.e. copy of plaint that the petitioner had not virtually filed the case for restitution of conjugal rights. He has filed a petition for divorce, which is evident from the prayer portion of the plaint. Only requirement at the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46524 of 2008 (4) dt.14-03-2012 3 / 3 3 time of cognizance is to see as to whether on the basis of averments made in the complaint petition and materials available on record the offence is made out or not. The Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has committed no error, while taking cognizance of the offence. Moreover, order of cognizance was passed long back in the month of March, 2006 and after lapse of more than 2 ½ years the petitioner had approached this Court. So far the Judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that in appropriate cases while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court can interfere with a case at initial stage of cognizance. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a case, which can be categorized in exceptional or rarest of rare cases. Time without number, it has been held that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases. The petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

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.