Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19968 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Ravi Prakash, son of Bal Mukund Sharma, resident of Village- Shahpur P.S. Nagarnausa, District-Nalanda 2. Puspa Devi, wife of Bipin Kumar, resident of Village- Hasni, P.S. Chandi, District-Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Munni Devi, daughter of Late Shiv Shankar Sharma, resident of Village- Kesho Bigaha, P.S. Tikari, District-Gaya .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.19986 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Gayatri Devi, wife of Bal Mukund Sharma 2. Bal Mukund Sharma, son of Late Dani Sharma, Both are residents of Village- Shahpur, P.S. Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Munni Devi, daughter of Late Shiv Shankar Sharma, resident of Village- Kesho Bigaha, P.S. Tikari, District-Gaya .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER --------------------- 4 29-08-2012 Since both the cases arise out of the same order and the same F.I.R., they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 in both the cases. Petitioners of both the petitions are close family Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19968 of 2010 (4) dt.29-08-2012 2 / 5 2 members of the husband of the informant. In both the petitions, petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated 21.03.2009 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda in G.R. No.933 of 2008 arising out of Nagarnausa P.S. Case No.83 of 2008. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order, submits that it is true that in the F.I.R. petitioners were named as accused except petitioner no.1, namely, Ravi Prakash in Cr.Misc.No.19968 of 2010. Regarding petitioner Ravi Prakash, only fact was disclosed that he was brother of husband of Opp.Party no.2 (i.e. Dewar of Opp.Party no.2). During investigation, nothing was collected and, as such, chargesheet was submitted only against husband of the informant and petitioners were exonerated. He submits that the husband of Opp.Party no.2 is not before this Court. It was argued that though petitioners were exonerated during investigation and they were not forwarded to face trial, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the petitioners also that too without assigning any reason. He submits that the learned Magistrate has committed serious error in passing order of cognizance in respect of petitioners, whereas they Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19968 of 2010 (4) dt.29-08-2012 3 / 5 3 were not sent up for trial. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of order of cognizance. Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opp.Party no.2 submits that order of cognizance was challenged by the petitioners before the revisional court and revision petition was dismissed by learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda vide order dated 24.04.2010 passed in Cr. Revision No.36 of 2009. He submits that though the petitioners had preferred revision and revision was rejected, the petitioners have not at all made any prayer for quashing of the said order. He further submits that since Cr. Revision was preferred against order of cognizance and it was rejected, petitioners were not entitled to file the present petition in the garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is primarily barred under Section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that in the F.I.R., there was specific allegation against all the petitioners and during investigation also, those allegations were corroborated, but to the reasons best known to the police, they were not forwarded to face the trial. However, learned Magistrate after examining the material in the case diary was satisfied that the petitioners were also involved and, as such, order of cognizance was passed. According to learned counsel for the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19968 of 2010 (4) dt.29-08-2012 4 / 5 4 informant as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, it is not a fit case for interference. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while replying the contention of learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 submits that it is true that petitioners of Cr.Misc.No.19968 of 2010 had preferred revision against order of cognizance, but fact remains that no revision was preferred by the petitioners of second case (i.e. Cr.Misc.No.19986 of 2010). Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In view of specific averment made in paragraph-10 of Cr. Misc.No.19968 of 2010, it is evident that the petitioners of this petition had preferred Cr.Revision , which stood dismissed on 24.04.2010 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda. Despite the fact that revision preferred against order of cognizance was rejected, the petitioners have not bothered to assail the order of the revisional court. It is true that while differing with the police report, it is required on the part of the learned Magistrate to assign some reason. From the order impugned, it is evident that no detailed reason has been assigned. However, keeping in view the fact that order of cognizance was assailed by the petitioners in Cr.Misc.No.19968 of 2010 before the revisional court and it was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19968 of 2010 (4) dt.29-08-2012 5 / 5 5 also rejected , the Court

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.