Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45391 of 2010 ====================================================== Dr. Braj Kishore Prasad , son of Late Laljee Prasad, resident of 3,Oaklands Court Aldeliffe, Lancaster LAISAT, United Kingdom .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Smt. Usha Kumari Sinha, W/O Dr. Rana Prasad, resident of Village- Mankipar, P.S. Dhanarua, District-Patna .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -------------------------- 8 15-10-2012 Heard Sri Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ansaraul Haque, Addl. Public Prosecutor and Smt. Alka Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/ Opp.Party no.2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 20.07.2010 passed by Sri B.Ram, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Masaurhi, in Complaint Case No.88(C) of 2008. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . In the present case, initially an F.I.R. vide Dhanarua P.S. Case No.83 of 2003 was registered on 28.04.2003 and during investigation the case was found not true and final report was submitted and on protest Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45391 of 2010 (8) dt.15-10-2012 2 / 7 2 petition, the present complaint petition was initiated. Short fact of the case is that initially Opp.Party no.2 had filed a written complaint to the Officer Incharge, Dhanarua Police Station and on the basis of written complaint of Opp.Party no.2, an F.I.R. vide Dhanarua P.S. Case No.83 of 2003 was registered for offence under [STATUTE] . It was alleged in the F.I.R. that Opp.Party no.2 had a house at the native place and she got an information that the lock of her house was removed and house-hold articles and other articles were removed by the elder brother of the husband of Opp.Party no.2. It was also disclosed in the F.I.R. that the elder brother of her husband, who is petitioner before this Court, was an N.R.I. and while he was in India, he has committed the said offence. After registering the F.I.R., the police investigated the case and during investigation, nothing was noticed by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the allegation, as made in the F.I.R. On the contrary, the Investigating Officer found that there was a land dispute and, as such, the police submitted final form on 28.08.2003. Before submission of final report, the informant /Opp.Party no.2, apprehending that the Investigating Officer may not investigate the case properly, filed a protest petition on 21.05.2003, which is kept on record. However, after submission of final report, no order Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45391 of 2010 (8) dt.15-10-2012 3 / 7 3 could be passed by the learned Magistrate for a long time and finally on 28.04.2008, Opp.Party no.2 pressed the protest petition and on the same date the learned Magistrate after accepting final report treated the protest petition as complaint, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.88C of 2008 and on the same date, the complainant was examined on oath. Thereafter, by order dated 20.07.2010 the learned Magistrate after examining witnesses during enquiry took cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] , which has been assailed in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of cognizance, submits that it was completely a malicious prosecution due to the reason that there was some land dispute in between the husband of Opp.Party no.2 and the petitioner and, as such, on a false accusation, F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of Opp.Party no.2 in the year 2003 and during investigation, it was not found true and, as such, final report was submitted in the year 2003 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of cognizance primarily on the ground of limitation. He submits that the occurrence, as alleged in the case, had taken place in the month of April, 2003, whereas in the case order of cognizance was passed in the year 2010 i.e. after about seven years from the date of occurrence. Learned counsel for the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45391 of 2010 (8) dt.15-10-2012 4 / 7 4 petitioner submits that in view of Section 468(2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the present case, cognizance order was to be passed within a period of three years from the date of occurrence or knowledge. He submits that for the offence under [STATUTE] , the maximum punishment prescribed is three years imprisonment and, as such, within a period of three years from the date of occurrence, cognizance order was required to be passed. In the present case after about seven years, order of cognizance was passed and, as such, on this ground alone, order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. Besides this, he submits that the approach adopted by the complainant/ Opp.Party no.2 is also sufficient for drawing an inference that allowing the prosecution of the petitioner in the present case will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court due to the reason that F.I.R. as per instance of Opp.Party no.2 was lodged in the year 2003. In the case, the police submitted final report and protest petition was filed in the year 2003 and thereafter no step was taken by the complainant to press her protest petition and finally in the year 2008 on her prayer, the protest petition was treated as complaint petition. Even thereafter, the complainant had not taken sincere effort to adduce evidence. The first witness in the present case was produced by the complainant on 25.05.2010, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45391 of 2010 (8) dt.15-10-2012 5 / 7 5 which shows that allowing th

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.