Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25642 of 2011 (7) dt.14-03-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25642 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ranjeet Prasad son of Rajeshwar Prasad. 2. Rajeshwar Prasad, son of Late Kamaldeo Prasad Lal. 3. Sushil Prasad son of Rajeshwar Prasad 4. Shyama Devi, w/o Rajeshwar Prasad 5. Sumala Devi, W/o Sushil Prasad 6. Bholu Kumar son of Sushil Prasad. All are resident of village-Piparahi (Punarwas), P.S.-Purnahiya, District-Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sindhu Devi, wife of Ranjeet Prasad, presently residing at Piparahi Punarvas, P.S.-Purnahiya, District-Sheohar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumod Kr. Srivastava For the Informant : Mr. Devendra Kumar For the State : Mr. Rajiv Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 7 14-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Informant and learned counsel for the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Sheohar at Sitamarhi who had taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . The present case is arising from Purnahia P.S. Case No. 60/2010. In the present case, the informant has made an allegation that she was married on 26.4.2000 with Ranjit Prasad according to Hindu rites and rituals. From the beginning the husband, father in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25642 of 2011 (7) dt.14-03-2012 law, mother in law and brother in law of the informant were torturing her for dowry and also they had started torturing, when she gave birth to a female child for that reason, another case being Purnahia P.S. Case No. 63/2006 has also been lodged. In the meantime, they have given an impression for compromise and they brought the complainant to their house and started torturing. They had also stopped providing the food, started assaulting and always gave threatening. Finally, they used to convey the fact that they will kill her and create some documents with regard to death. On 26.9.2010 at about 8.00 A.M. and on 2.10.2011 at about 7.00 P.M. her husband along with other accused persons had started assaulting the informant. She has taken the name of Bholu Kumar and other accused persons. She raised an alarm and somehow she saved herself and for this reason the present case has been filed. The police after investigation found Rajeshwar Prasad, Shyama Devi, Sumala Devi and other accused persons innocent but against husband namely, Ranjeet Kumar the police found materials. Accordingly, the final form was submitted in favour of all petitioners except in case of Ranjeet Prasad/husband, charge-sheet was submitted. The court below on examination of the case diary has taken cognizance against all the accused persons. The petitioners Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25642 of 2011 (7) dt.14-03-2012 submit that Bholu Kumar who is hardly 9 years old but on the date of incident, he was hardly of 8 years, even then Bholu Kumar has been arrayed as accused in the case. In support of his submission he has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing the document of the Principal, Durga School, Piparahi, Sheohar to show that the date of birth of Bholu Kumar is 8.3.2003. Looking to the age of Bholu Kumar, it is absurd that he would have taken part in the incident as alleged and as such looking to the tender age of Bholu Kumar and it has been argued by the petitioner that the whole prosecution is malicious. With regard to Sumala Devi, the counsel for the petitioners submits that she does not live along with the prosecutrix and her husband and there is no specific allegation against this lady so much so that during the investigation it was found that she was not residing with prosecutrix or her husband. With regard to other accused persons, the petitioner could not satisfy about their innocence for the present. Looking to the nature of the allegation and the participation of the accused persons, the court below has rightly taken cognizance against petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in the case. Opposite party no. 2 has not disputed the age of Bholu Kumar being 9 years old as on today. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25642 of 2011 (7) dt.14-03-2012 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 8 years old child cannot be presumed to have participated in the crime that has been alleged in the First Information Report. In the F.I.R. no-where the informant has given the age of Bholu Kumar 8 years as if Bholu Kumar has attained the sufficient age. In view of this Court, the informant should not have arrayed Bholu Kumar as accused person which itself shows the malicious intention of the informant against Bholu Kumar. In the case of Sumala Devi, it appears that from the record that she is not living with prosecutrix and her husband as she is living in-other place in rented house. This fact has come during investigation which shows that she has been arrayed as an accused with a malicious intention. The cognizance against Sumala Devi and Bholu Kumar is quashed. With regard to other accused persons, the trial will proceed in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is partly allowed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.