Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40372 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sunil Das, S/o Baliram Das 2. Baliram Das, S/o Late Dev Nandan Das. 3. Indramati Devi, W/o Baliram Das, All residents of Vill:-Babhanpura, P.S. Ghosi, Distt-Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sanju Devi, D/o Shyam Das, R/o Vill:-Babhana P.S, Jehanabad, Distt- Jehanabad. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan-1, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.M. Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 6 06-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P.No.2 along with learned Additional P.P. for the State. 2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 26.08.2010 passed by learned SDJM, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 374/2010 whereby and whereunder petitioners have been summoned to face trial punishable under [STATUTE] . 3. Sanju Devi, who was earlier married with elder brother of petitioner, Sunil Das, namely, Prabhu Das on account of his disappearance alleged to have remarried with petitioner, Sunil Das and during continuance of her marital life, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house on 05.05.2010 after being deprived of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40372 of 2010 (6) dt.06-04-2012 2 her belongings in the background of non fulfilment of demand of dowry. 4. Contentions on behalf of petitioners are that, true it is that complainant was married with Prabhu Das who in due course of time disappeared. Petitioner no.2 and 3 who are father- in-law and mother-in-law are ready to keep the complainant with full dignity and honour but as they declined to accede with demand of father of complainant to get the complainant married with petitioner, Sunil Das, as such instant case has been filed with false and frivolous allegations. Then submitted that it is false to say that there was any marriage solemnized in between. Also submitted that the story happens to be improbable in the background of difference of age in between Sunil Das and Sanju Devi. Also submitted that petitioner, Sunil Das happens to be minor within the definition of juvenile as per Juvenile Justice Act and for that referred Annexure-2, photo copy of admit card of Bihar School Board Examination disclosing his date of birth as 05.01.1994. 5. It is submitted that in the aforesaid fact the order of cognizance is fit to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submitted that as per prevailing custom, the marriage was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40372 of 2010 (6) dt.06-04-2012 3 solemnized, spouses led their marital status and now with ulterior motive petitioners are withdrawing themselves. Also submitted that for the purpose of taking cognizance, only a prima facie material has to be seen and that has sufficiently been placed and is available on the record as is evident from order impugned. 7. Learned APP endorsed. 8. With regard to submission led on behalf of the petitioner, all those things are factual one which cannot be a ground for interfering with the order impugned. So far propriety of the order is concerned, it is settled at rest that only prima facie material has to be seen and that is evident from the order. Therefore, I do not see it a fit case wherein order impugned warrants any sort of interference. Consequent thereupon, petition is rejected. 9. However, from Annexure-2, it is evident that petitioner no.1, Sunil Das happens to be a juvenile one and hence learned lower court will take proper recourse in accordance with Juvenile Justice Act. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.