Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.50366 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Anil Kumar Singh @ Punam S/O Late Bhuskhlu Singh Resident Of Mainpura, Police Station- Patliputra, Distt- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 3 14-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. The petitioner in this application seeks quashing of F.I.R. registered vide Patliputra P. S. Case No. 148/2012 for offences under sections 494 and 498 (A ) of the Indian Penal Code on 3.07.2012 on the basis of the information given by the Chairperson, Bihar State Commission for Women, Patna vide letter dated 1546 dated 02.07.2012. The petitioner has stated that the information lodged by the Chairperson, Bihar State Women Commission, Patna, which has been registered as P. S. Case under [STATUTE] . on behalf of one Seema Sinha against her husband, Anil Kumar Singh lacks inherent power of the Chairperson, Bihar State Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50366 of 2012 (3) dt.14-05-2015 2/4 Women Commission, Patna to do so. He referred to the Bihar State Commission for Women Act, 1999 and laid emphasis on chapter-3, Section-10 relating to the functions of the Commission and urges that the Chairperson of Bihar State women Commission, Patna does not have the power to lodge a complaint and on the basis of the said complaint, the said F.I.R. could not have been instituted. He further points out that under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal procedure, no court shall take cognizance of an offence, punishable under Chapter- XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that under the provisions of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the present aggrieved person can lodge a complaint and none other. He further states that on the basis of such complaint by other person than the aggrieved person, no court could have taken cognizance for an offence relating to marriage and cruelty by husband or relatives of husband as envisaged in Chapter XX and Chapter XXA containing [STATUTE] . From perusal of Chapter -XX of the Indian Penal Code, which consists of offences relating to marriage, contain sections 493 to 498. It is evident from the P. S. Case that an F.I.R. has been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50366 of 2012 (3) dt.14-05-2015 3/4 registered under [STATUTE] . 498A I.P.C. is contained in Chapter- XXA and relates to cruelty of husband and relative of husband. As such, the contention of the petitioner, so far as relating to [STATUTE] is concerned, the same appears to be correct and the same has to be deleted from the offences as contained in the said P.S. No. 148/2012, but there is no embargo under the Code of Criminal Procedure so far as 498A of the I.P.C. is concerned. Hence, the F.I.R. can not be quashed in its entirety. The petitioner has further referred to a judgment reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court cases -335 in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others whereby the Apex Court had enumerated categories of cases in para-102 of the said Judgment, extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. could be exercised by the Hon’ble Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. There are as many as seven categories of cases, but, the case of the petitioner does not fall under any of those categories. Moreso, an F.I.R. has been lodged by the wife of petitioner, namely, Seema Sinha bearing Danapur P.S.Case No. 228/2000 under [STATUTE] . and Section ¾ of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50366 of 2012 (3) dt.14-05-2015 4/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been informed by the petitioner that said P.S. No. 228/2000 is pending for judgement. Thus, in view of the circumstances of this case, the trial in connection with F.I.R. registered vide Patliputra P. S. Case No. 148/2012 for offences under [STATUTE] be expedited and only under [STATUTE] . With the above observation, this application is allowed in part. Sudha/- (Nilu Agrawal, J) U T

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.