Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20179 of 2008 (8) dt.24-02-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.20179 of 2008 ====================================================== Ganesh Paswan & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mr. Arun Kumar Arun Mr. Sanjay Kishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 8 24-02-2012 Initially this application was filed on behalf of six accused-petitioners but by order dated 5.10.2009 this application with respect to accused-petitioner nos. 1,2,3 and 4 stands dismissed. As such at present this application is only with respect to petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 namely, Sangita Bharti and Sonu Paswan. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to quash the order dated 29.4.2008 passed in Mokama P.S. case No. 33 of 2007 ( GR. No. 322 of 2007) registered for the offences under [STATUTE] and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for discharge filed under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20179 of 2008 (8) dt.24-02-2012 made submission that petitioner nos. 5 and 6 , namely, Sangita Bharti and Sonu Paswan are the brother-in-law and sister of Krishna Bharti, husband of opposite party no.2 and they have been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive. It has also been submitted that petitioner No.6 is Class III employee in Railway Department as such both have no concern with family of Opposite party no.2. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate on hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused- petitioners and the prosecution and also on perusal of charge-sheet and the case diary arrived at the conclusion that there is sufficient material in the case diary to frame the charge against the accused petitioners and accordingly rejected the application filed on behalf of the accused including the petitioner for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Apparently, there is no illegality in the impugned order, amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the point of defence is concerned, they are at liberty to raise their defence in Trial Court at appropriate stage. Arun Kumar/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, 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.