CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34557 OF 2007 ---------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. --------- 1.PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH 2.Manoj Kumar Singh 3.Gopal Singh 4.Praveen Kumar All sons of late Nand Kumar Singh 5.Veen Singh wife of Manoj Kumar Singh 6.Rajni Devi @ Rajni Kumari wife of Praveen Kumar Singh 7.Lovely Kumari @ Lovely Devi, wife of Gopal Singh 8.Pukari Devi widow of late Nand Kumar Singh All residents of village-Mansherpur, P.S.- Balia, Dist.-Begusarai ….. ……Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Kishori Kumari @ Mithu wife of Pankaj Kumar Singh, daughter of Professor Shiv Kumar Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-Ghachitola, Rajendra Nagar, P.S.-Begusarai Town, Dist.-Begusarai, permanent resident of village-Rashidpur, P.S.-Bachawara, Dist.- Begusarai …… …..Opp. Parties -------- For the petitioners: Mr.Choudhary Shyam Nandan For Opp.Party No.2: Mr.Pramod Mishra For the State : Mr.Hirday Prasad Singh, Addl.P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar,J. Eight petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 10.7.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.1439C of 2006. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2 Begusarai which was number as Complaint Case No.1439C of 2006 against altogether nine accused persons, who were family members of her husband including her husband as accused no.1. It was alleged in the complaint petition by the complainant that after her marriage, the accused persons pressurized her to request her father for giving a Maruti car. It was disclosed by the complainant that her father was retired as a Reader from Lalit Narayan Mithila University and, as such, her father was not in a position to satisfy the demand and within few months from the date of marriage she was ousted from the house of in-laws. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. After filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry and, thereafter, by the impugned order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence as mentioned above. 3. Mr.Choudhary Shyam Nandan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while making prayer for quashing of the entire prosecution as well as order of cognizance, submits that it is true that marriage was solemnized on 28.5.2006 but immediately after the marriage, while she was going to her in-laws house on way she disclosed that four years back she had solemnized marriage with another person. Immediately thereafter, on 30.5.2006 an informatory petition was filed by petitioner no.2, who is elder brother of petitioner no.1 (husband of the complainant) and, thereafter, on 3.6.2006 a case for divorce vide Matrimonial Case No.34 of 2006 was filed in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai. It has further been submitted that immediately after the marriage the 3 complainant had left her in-laws house and, thereafter, in the night she was caught by Balia Police Station before whom she gave a written statement disclosing therein that she was disciple of a particular Saint and against her consent her marriage was solemnized. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to annexure-2 to the petition, which is a photo copy of purported written report submitted by opposite party no.2 before the Officer Incharge, Balia Police Station. It has been submitted that the complaint petition was filed maliciously and the entire family members have been roped in the case. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the order of cognizance. 4. Mr.Pramod Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted that the documents which have been filed along with the petition in support of the petitioners’ case may not be looked into by this court at this stage, that too, while hearing a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that those documents were required to be examined by the concerned court at an appropriate stage. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 5. Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has adopted the same stands which have been taken by learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. I am in 4 agreement with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that the documents enclosed with the petition may not be looked into by this court. It is difficult for this court to record any finding on the basis of such documents. The court is of the opinion that such documents are required to be examined by the concerned court at an appropriate stage. After going through the contents of the complaint petition as well the impugned order, the court is of the view that the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order. The petitioners have not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in their favour. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 19.11.2008 stands automatically vacated. 9. It is made clear that whatever observation has been recorded in the present case has been recorded only for deciding the present petition. The court below may not be prejudiced by any of the observations made by this court at any subsequent stage. 10. It goes without saying that the points which have been raised in the present petition can be raised at an appropriate stage i.e. at the stage of charge. Patna High Court The 23rd November,2010 Md.S./NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)