Criminal Miscellaneous No.10980 OF 1998 In the matter of an application under Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------------- Indu Kumari, Wife of Rameshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Kankarbagh, Mal Godown, Gali No.15, P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna --- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rameshwar Prasad, Son of Sukan Sao, resident of Mohalla- West Ashoknagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna --------- Opp.Parties. -------------- For the petitioner : Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Sri L.K.Sharma, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. ----------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar,J The petitioner, who claims to be the wife of Opp.Party no.2 , has approached this Court against the order dated 27.09.1997 passed in Complaint Case No.1020(C) of 1997, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal code. The present petition was firstly taken up for hearing on the point of admission on 26.6.1998 before a Bench of this Court. On the date, while passing an order for issuance of notice to Opp.Party no.2, this Court had directed that - 2 - in the meantime, further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, by the order dated 10.12.1998, the petition was admitted for hearing and on 10.12.1998 it was directed that during the pendency of this application further proceeding in the court below in Complaint Case No.1020(C) of 1997 shall remain stayed. 2. The complaint in question was filed by Opp.Party no.2 on an allegation that the petitioner had filed a false case, i.e. Complaint Case No.240(C) of 1993 for the offences under Sections 494, 495 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against Opp.Party no.2. It was alleged by the petitioner in her complaint that though Opp.Party no.2 in the present case was already married, deceiving this petitioner Opp.Party no.2 married with this petitioner and subsequently, her father gave Rs.65, 000/- to Opp.Party no.2 for the purpose of purchasing a piece of land. It was alleged that though land was purchased from the amount given by the father of the petitioner, the said land was purchased in the name of first wife of Opp.Party no.2 and only thereafter she came to know that Opp.Party no.2 was already married. In the said complaint petition, Opp.Party no.2 was put on trial and finally in the month of August, 1996 he got an order of acquittal. - 3 - After the order of acquittal, this petitioner approached this Court by way of filing an appeal vide S.L.A. No.22 of 1997, which was also rejected. 3. After rejection of S.L.A.No.22 of 1997, it was turn of Opp.Party no.2 to file a complaint against this petitioner and, as such, the present case i.e. Complaint Case No.1020(C) of 1997 was filed against the petitioner on the allegation of commission of offence under Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that in the Complaint Case of Opp.Party no.2 the petitioner had given false evidence before the Magistrate in Complaint Case No.240(C) of 1993 and he also alleged that this petitioner had defamed Opp.Party no.2. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order had taken cognizance of the offence. 4. Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised serious objection on the point that the order impugned i.e. the order of cognizance is bad in law, since it is barred by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .He submits that even for the time being if it is assumed that this petitioner had committed the alleged offence , it was the Presiding Officer of the Court before whom - 4 - the petitioner had given false evidence to file a complaint or to take action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has also submitted that if an offence is alleged to have been committed in a judicial proceeding, none has got right to file a case separately for such offence. A case can only be instituted in terms of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. I find force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in view of the stand taken by the parties, instead of going into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to pass an order, so that the dispute in between the parties may be settled before this Court. In this case on notice, Opp.Party no.2 has appeared through his advocate, Sri Rajesh Kumar. He submits that his client also does not want to pursue the matter in view of the fact that compromise in between Opp.Party no.2 and the petitioner of the present case has taken place. Learned counsel for the petitioner , while referring paragraph 5 of the petition , has submitted that earlier a Matrimonial Case No.93 (M)/97 was pending in the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court ,Patna for a decree of - 5 - divorce/dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and Opp. Party no.2 and now the suit has already been decreed. He submits that his client, i.e. the petitioner will not further litigate with Opp.Party no.2. This submission has come on the basis of a grievance being raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. Learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 has raised an apprehension that in future there is possibility that the petitioner may again file some case against him. In view of the said apprehension, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that his client will not take any step for further litigation with this petitioner. 6. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court was not authorized to take cognizance of the offence, particularly under Section-211 I.P.C., which admittedly, if it is accepted, was committed in a proceeding in relation to Complaint Case No.240 ( C) of 1993 and, as such, the order of cognizance in the present case is not tenable. However, since both the parties have agreed, it would not be advisable to allow continuance of further proceeding in the court below pursuant to the impugned order of cognizance. - 6 - 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, no purpose would be served in directing the petitioner to participate in the proceeding pursuant to the impugned order of cognizance. In the case the alleged offence was committed in a proceeding, which was pending in the year 1993 and, as such, after lapse of such a long period, it would not be appropriate to ask the petitioner to face with the trial for the alleged offence. Accordingly, the order of cognizance and subsequent proceeding in Complaint Case No.1020(C) of 1997 is set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 22nd March,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J)