Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43469 of 2010 (6) dt.13-09-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43469 of 2010 Akhilesh Kumar Chourasia Son of Bhuneshwar Kumar Mandal Resident of Village - Dogachhi, P.S. - Kasba, District - Purnia. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Minu Kumari D/O Awadh Kishore Prasad Sahu Resident of Village Sahu Parbatta, P.S. Parbatta, District - Bhagalpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s with Criminal Miscellaneous No.20669 of 2010 Bhuneshwar Prasad Mandal & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s Appearance: For the petitioners : Mr. N.K.Agarwal, Sr. Advocate For opposite party no.2: Mr. Panditjee Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 6 13.09.2012 Both the above stated petitions originate from Parbatta P.S. Case no. 12/2010 registered under [STATUTE] and3/ 4 of the D.P. Act, and accordingly, both the above stated petitions are being disposed off by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and also heard learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. In my view, this petition can be disposed off on admission stage itself. Petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 43469/2010 is husband whereas petitioners in Cr. Misc. no. 20669/2010 are in-laws of opposite party no.2 and all the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43469 of 2010 (6) dt.13-09-2012 2 in GR no.158/2010 arising out of Parbatta P.S. Case no. 12/2010 by which and whereunder he took cognizance under [STATUTE] and3/ 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that opposite party no.2 gave written report to Officer In-charge, Parbatta police station stating therein, inter-alia, that her marriage was solemnized on 2.11.2008 with the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 43469/2010 and at the time of marriage cash as well as ornaments were given to the petitioners but when she went to in laws house, petitioners started demanding more dowry and when the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty. It is further stated that in the meantime, she became pregnant but petitioners on false pretext took her to Purnia where her miscarriage was done and subsequently, she was ousted from her matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the prosecution case, entire occurrence took place at Purnia. So, the court of Naugachia has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. It is further contended by him that even if the prosecution story assumed to be true, then also, only husband of opposite party no.2 can be said to be responsible for the alleged occurrence because other in-laws had no concerned with the affair of the husband of opposite party no.2. Moreover, petitioner nos. 4 and 6, namely, Punam Devi and Bebi Devi in Cr. Misc. no. 20669/2010 are married Nanads whose marriage had taken place several years ago and they are residing at their matrimonial homes but even then, they have been made accused in this case and the aforesaid fact goes to show that entire family of the husband of opposite Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43469 of 2010 (6) dt.13-09-2012 3 party no.2 has been roped in this case with an intention to harass and humiliate them. It is also pointed out by him that earlier this case was referred to mediation center for patching up the dispute of the parties but due to rigid approach of opposite party no.2, matter could not be materialized. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 refutes the above stated submissions and submits that the offence of [STATUTE] is a continuing offence. So, the court of Naugachia has also got jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. It is further contended by him that chapter of reconciliation has already been closed and it is not proper stage for this court to interfere into the impugned order dated 12.5.2010. Having heard the above stated submissions and considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that these are not fit cases in which this court should exercise its power vested under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, at least, at this stage and accordingly, both the above stated petitions stand dismissed on admission stage itself with liberty to the petitioners to raise their plea before the trial court at appropriate stage and if they do so, learned trial court shall consider their plea on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. In the aforesaid manner, both the above stated petitions stand disposed off on admission stage itself. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,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.