Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.50964 of 2008 ===================================================== 1. Raghubansh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ramyad Singh. 2. Smt. Dhani Devi, wife of Raghnubansh Prasad Singh. 3. Hemant Kumar Singh, son of Raghubansh Prasad Singh. 4. Sishir Kumar, son of Raghubansh Prasad Singh. All are resident of village-Sekhopur, P.S. Desari (Sahdei O.P.), District-Vaishali. 5. Kavita Kumari, wife of Sushil Kumar, presently residing at Tagore Hills, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. Smt. Savita Kumari, wife of Hemant Kumar Singh, resident of village-Sekhopur, P.S. Desari (Sahdei O.P.), District-Vaishali. …. …. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Nagina Prasad Singh, son of Late Gulab Chand Singh, resident of village-Parsauniya, P.S. Mahua, District-Vaishali. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : M/s. Shrinandan Prasad Sinha and Ashok Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER ------------------ 6 20-03-2012 The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 20.11.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.C1-25 of 2005/Trial No.1914 of 2008 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, rejecting the application dated 21.7.2008 filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. 2. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Nagina Prasad Singh, filed the Complaint Case No.C1-25 of 2005 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50964 of 2008 (6) dt.20-03-2012 2 / 5 2 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, against the accused-petitioners, named in the complaint petition, alleging therein that he performed the marriage of his daughter, Rekha Devi, in the year 1992 with Brajbhushan Kumar ‘Bimal’, son of accused-petitioner no.1, Raghubansh Prasad Singh, and due to wedlock, her daughter gave birth to five daughters and her last daughter was born on 18.12.2002. After the birth of fifth daughter to his daughter, Rekha Devi, she was being tortured by her in-laws due to not giving birth to a male issue and her husband (the son-in-law of the opposite party no.2), was being pressurized to perform the remarriage but he was not ready. It is further alleged by the opposite party no.2 that his son-in-law was doing the job in a factory at Delhi and on purchasing the land he built the house there. His daughter alongwith her husband whenever used to visit at her parental village-Sekhopur, all the accused used to put pressure upon her daughter to bring the cash of Rs.2,00,000/- from her Maika so that the house in Delhi may be extended. While his son-in-law used to make protest saying that he is himself earning and there is no need of demanding the money from the opposite party no.2 but in spite of that his daughter was being abused and assaulted by the accused persons. It is further alleged that when his son-in-law alongwith his daughter and grand Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50964 of 2008 (6) dt.20-03-2012 3 / 5 3 daughters came in June, 2004 to attend the marriage of the accused-petitioner no.5, Kavita Kumari, then his daughter and son-in-law were abused and, ultimately, they proceeded for Delhi by train from Patna on 29.6.2004 and due to misbehaviour of the accused persons, his son-in-law suffered from brain hemorrhage and he was admitted in Agra for treatment and, later on, he was referred to All India Institute of Medical Science, Delhi. In that course, the daughter of the opposite party no.2 came to village- Sekhopur to take her ornaments to sell the same for the treatment of her husband (son-in-law of the opposite party no.2). At that time, she was assaulted by the accused persons and her ornaments worth of Rs.2,00,000/- were snatched by the accused persons, then she came to his house and he sent his daughter after arranging the money to Delhi. 3. After filing of the complaint case by the opposite party no.2, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioners were summoned under [STATUTE] . After examination of the witnesses before charge, the accused- petitioners filed an application dated 21.7.2008 under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge, which was rejected by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate through order Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50964 of 2008 (6) dt.20-03-2012 4 / 5 4 dated 20.11.2008, which is impugned in the present application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that the opposite party no.2 has filed the false complaint case during the illness of his son-in-law, Brajbhusan Kumar ‘Bimal’, who died on 18th of January, 2005. The motive of filing the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2 is only to grab the amount of L.I.C. Policies and other property of his son- in-law, Brajbhushan Kumar ‘Bimal’, who was son of accused- petitioner no.1, Raghubansh Prasad Singh, in favour of his daughter, Rekha Devi, wife of Brajbhushan kumar ‘Bimal’. 5. On perusal of the impugned order dated 20.11.2008, it appears that on going through the evidence of the six witnesses, as recorded before charge, including the P.W.6, Rekha Devi, the daughter of the opposite party no.2, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie there are sufficient material to frame the charge and, accordingly, rejected the application dated 21.7.2008 filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. It also appears from Annexure- ‘1’ to this application that earlier the accused-petitioners had challenged the summoning order passed against them for the offence under

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.