Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13892 of 2012 ====================================================== Uday Kumar @ Uday Kumar Singh S/O Late Butai Singh Resident Of Mohalla- Indira Nagar, P.S.- Pataliputra, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Bibha Bharti D/O Nawal Prasad Singh Resident Of Mohalla- Jamalpur Sadar, P.S.- Jamalpur, Distriict- Munger. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Umesh Kr. Mishra, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 3. 14-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.5.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in G.R. No. 388 of 2001 by which he has refused to drop the proceeding of the Complaint Case. The background fact of the case is that the Opposite party No. 2 filed a First Information Report against her in-laws under [STATUTE] . In the meanwhile, the Petitioner filed a suit for divorce which was allowed. However, the Opposite Party No. 2 craved modification in the quantum of alimony, without challenging the decree of Divorce Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13892 of 2012 (3) dt.14-09-2012 2 / 3 2 suit, before the High Court, vide Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 2010 which was disposed of on 2.1.2012 observing that the Criminal Court was expected to keep in mind the fact of decree of divorce which had attained its finality between the parties. It has been submitted on behalf of the parties that in this background, the proceeding should be dropped also for reasons of jurisdiction. Further submission is that the Opposite party No. 2 remarried but she faces Matrimonial problems even with her second husband on account of which her second husband filed a Divorce suit in which the Petitioner has also been noticed. On the other hand, the counsel for the Informant submits that now four witnesses have been examined and, therefore, no further indulgence should be given to the Petitioner. There is no doubt that under Section 462 Cr. P.C. even if the trial is held without any territorial jurisdiction, the same should not be set aside unless failure of justice has been caused but such is not the position here. In view of such, the application is disposed off with a direction to the Court below to consider recall of the witnesses for further cross-examination on behalf of the Petitioner on the point of the order passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal 26 of 2010 and also the notice received by the Petitioner in the Divorce Suit Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13892 of 2012 (3) dt.14-09-2012 3 / 3 3 initiated by the second husband of the Informant so that no prejudice is caused to any party. The Trial Court is further directed to keep in mind the observation made by this Court in Misc. Appeal 26 of 2010. With this observation, the application is disposed off. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, 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.