Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4594 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Sneh Lata W/o Sri Som Dutt Sharma R/o 58-D, Pink Apartments, Naseepur, Dwarka, P.S.- Palam Gaon, New Delhi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sri Heera Lal S/o Late Sri Mauji Lal R/o New Yarpur, Janta Road, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Mandal, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, A.P.P. For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 4 04-12-2012 Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 be kept on the record. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5.3.2009 so far as it relates to the Petitioner, by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna has taken cognizance in Complaint case No.215(C) of 2009. The case of the Complainant is that in the year 2006 the accused No.1 shifted near his house and gained his confidence. Subsequently he proposed that he was going to open a Computer centre, in which the Complainant should also invest. Having been led by his promises the Complainant agreed to do so. In pursuance thereof he allegedly gave a sum of Rs.11 lacs to the Petitioner on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4594 of 2012 (4) dt.04-12-2012 2 18.2.2006 and thereafter the rest of the money to her husband, the co-accused, totaling to the tune of Rs.17 lacs. Subsequently since no returns were given to him he asked for return of the money, upon which the accused No.1 issued three cheques which bounced. It is for these reasons that the complaint was filed. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that she being the wife of main accused has been roped in, even though she has been complaining of his illegal activities, which is borne out from Annexure-2 which is a letter dated 4.9.2008 as also a complaint instituted by her on 12.10.2009 against him. Even though these complaints were instituted after the alleged transaction but it is apparent that the Petitioner was all along aggrieved with the activities of her husband and hence she should be exonerated from prosecution. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainant submits that the accused persons are in the habit of cheating innocent person and they should be prosecuted. Having gone through the allegations in the complaint, I am of the view that the Petitioner has been maliciously roped in on account of relationship with the main accused and there appears no allegation that it was she who had issued any cheque which had subsequently bounced and hence no offence [STATUTE] (4) dt.04-12-2012 3 made out against her. In view of such, the application is allowed and the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna in Complaint case No.215(C) of 2009 so far as it relates to the Petitioner is quashed. Narendra/- (Anjana Prakash, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 138

Statute Text:
Section 138 of the Indian Penal Code. Abetment of act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, if the offence be committed in consequence. Whoever abets what he knows to be an act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or air Force, of the Government of India, shall, if such act of insubordination be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.