Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35577 of 2010 ================================================== Aslam Parvez, son of Md. Alam resident of Raxaul, P.S. Raxaul, Distt. East Champaran, Motihari, at present residing at Panipat Refinery P.S. Panipat Refinery. Distt- Panpat (Hariyana) .... (Accused) .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Habsa Khatoon wife of Aslam Parvez, daughter of Badrul Hassan, resident of Village Amdoi, P.S. Ramgarhwa, Ditt- East Champaran, Motihari .... .... Opposite Parties. ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Madhuri Kumari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Naushaduzzoha ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 02-08-2012 Heard Smt. Madhuri Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Md. Naushaduzzoha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/opposite party no. 2. The petitioner, who is husband of complaint/opposite party no. 2, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 14.09.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Criminal Revision No. 230 of 2010. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge has approved the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul, in Complaint Case No. 214-C of 2006, whereby, learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35577 of 2010 (4) dt.02-08-2012 2 / 8 2 Magistrate had cancelled bail-bond of the petitioner and directed for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against him (petitioner). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner was allowed provisional bail and he was appearing before the court below under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate, while cancelling bail-bond was required to grant at least one month time and without granting such time, the learned Magistrate was not authorized to cancel bail-bond of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her submission has relied on an order passed by this Court, which has been reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 260 (Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal Vs. State of Bihar & Another). She has heavily relied on paragraph 16 of the order, which is quoted here-in-below:- “Section 317 Cr.P.C. provides for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases. However, if the Magistrate finds that personal appearance of the accused is necessary, he would direct that accused would no longer be represented on the next date by a pleader under Section 317 Cr.P.C. but would appear in person. If the accused in spite of such order does not appear in person, it would be open for the learned Magistrate to issue warrant of arrest and proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Chapter-VI of the Cr.P.C. and may also cancel bail and bail bond and proceed in accordance with Chapter XXXIII of the Cr.P.C. It does not Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35577 of 2010 (4) dt.02-08-2012 3 / 8 3 appear from the order of the preceding dates i.e. 31.1.2008, 26.3.2008 that personal attendance of petitioner would no longer be dispensed with, and he is required to attend in person. The Magistrate in view of Section 317(1) Cr.P.C. ought to have given an opportunity to an accused to appear in person who was being allowed to be represented through a pleader. The order of preceding dates in the case on the contrary shows that Magistrate in fact accepted the representation under Section 317 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has to follow the procedure prescribed therein, if it does not dispenses with his personal attendance. A Magistrate while rejecting a representation under Section 317 Cr.P.C. cannot at the same time cancel bail bond and issue non-bailable warrant of arrest, if on preceding dates has not clearly directed that personal attendance under Section 317 Cr.P.C. will no longer be dispensed with. The court ought to provide a reasonable opportunity to the accused to appear in person whose representation was earlier being allowed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. In this case it appears that trial lingered as a co-accused Prem Prakash was absconding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there have been no laches in his part.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is still ready to keep complainant/opposite party no. 2 respectfully, as wife. On the sole ground, that no time was granted before cancelling bail bond, it has been pleaded to set aside the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul as well as order passed by the Revisional Court (learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari). Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35577 of 2010 (4) dt.02-08-2012 4 / 8 4 The petitioner being husband of complainant/opposite party no. 2 was made accused in a complaint case filed under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint petition was filed in the year 2006, however; in the year 2009, the petitioner approached this Court for granting privilege of anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Misc. No. 42022 of 2009 and a Bench of this Court, while disposing of the said petition vide order dated 30.03.2010, observed as follows (the said order has been annexed and marked as Annexure ‘1’):- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner husband is apprehending his arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence under [STATUTE] and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted on his behalf that he is ready and willing to continue the matrimonial relationship with the complainant and for that purpose he shall file written undertaking on affidavit in the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order in the court below.

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.