Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42456 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Kashinath Malakar @ Kashi Nath Mali son of Ayodhya Prasad Malakar 2. Lalita Devi wife of Ayodhya Prasad Malakar Both residents of Mohalla Bhanwar Pokhar, Police Station- Pirbahore, Town and District-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Guriya Devi wife of Kashinath Malakar, daughter of Vidya Prasad Malakar, resident of Mohalla- Mungaraira, Post Office-Jamalpur, Police Station- East Colony, Jamalpur, Town –Jamalpur, District- Munger .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER --------------------- 11 01-05-2012 Heard Sri Prashant Ved Singh, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prashant Sinha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 and Sri Ram Sumiran Rai, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The present petition was filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 09.07.2008 passed in Complaint Case no.583 C of 2004 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharging the petitioners filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Initially, the petition was filed by three petitioners. However, during the pendency of this petition, petitioner no.3/ Ayodhya Prasad Malakar @ Ayodhya Mali died Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42456 of 2008 (11) dt.01-05-2012 2 / 3 2 and, as such, his name was expunged. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Opp.Party no.2 was having some affair with one another person and due to that reason, the petitioner no.1 had filed matrimonial case vide Matrimonial Case no.103 of 2004 on 26.04.2004. He submits that after noticing the fact regarding filing of matrimonial case, Opp.Party no.2 maliciously filed the present complaint petition making several serious allegations. However, the learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry took cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . He submits that since the complaint was filed in a well designed manner after filing of matrimonial case, the learned Magistrate was required to accept the petition for discharge. However, the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner without discussing the fact of pendency of the matrimonial case has rejected the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners. In this case, earlier with a view to get the dispute settled, the Court had granted indulgence to both the parties to file affidavit as to whether they are ready to reside as husband and wife or not. Pursuant to the said order, the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 has filed affidavit, wherein she has made statement that she is ready to live with petitioner no.1 as wife. The affidavit filed on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42456 of 2008 (11) dt.01-05-2012 3 / 3 3 behalf of petitioner no.1 does not indicate as to whether he wants to keep the complainant as his wife or not, but the averment made in the affidavit is indicative of the fact that he is not agreeable to the proposal of the complainant. Be that as it may, after going through the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has committed no error. Accordingly, the impugned order requires no interference. The petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.