IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28656 of 2009 Nirbhay Kumar S/o Late Sachidanand Sharma resident of Mohalla Professor Colony, Saryug Niwas, House No. A/22 Near Central School, Aghoria Bazar Chowk P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur District Muzaffarpur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar. 2. Smt. Sapna Singh @ Bulbu D/o Lalan Singh. 3. Smt. Manju Singh W/o Lalan Singh. 4. Lalan Singh S/o Not Known. 5. Manish Kumar @ Kismis S/o Lalan Singh. 6. Chunmun D/o Lalan Singh. 7. Deepak Kumar S/o not known. All resident of Village Launa P.S.-Tarapur, District-Munger. O.Ps. Counsel for petitioner:- Nirbhay Kumar, Advocate. Counsel for State:-Md. Arif (A.P.P.) ----------- 2. 20.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Md. Arif learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing entire prosecution of S.T. No. 1076/2008 arising out of Tarapur P.S. Case No. 18/2008 as well as order dated 11.06.2009 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in the above stated S.T. No. 1076/2008 in which discharge petition of the petitioner was rejected by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Munger passing impugned order dated 11.06.2009. The brief fact, which lies to file this petition, is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Smt. Sapna Singh @ Bulbu filed complaint petition bearing Complaint Case No. 103C/2008 in the Court of C.J.M., Munger on 29.10.2009. The aforesaid 2 complaint case was sent to Tarapur police station for institution of the F.I.R. and investigation and subsequently, Tarapur P.S. Case No. 18/2008 for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 314, 315 of the I.P.C. was registered against petitioner. The aforesaid Tarapur P.S. Case No. 18/2008 was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet and in usual way the cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.. before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Munger mentioning this fact that much prior to filing of the aforesaid case petitioner had filed several cases against Opposite Party No. 2 namely, Smt. Sapna @ Bulbu and furthermore, a decree of divorce had already been passed dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, having considered the materials available on the case diary rejected the aforesaid petition passing impugned order dated 11.06.2009 against which this petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that no doubt, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Oppoiste Party No. 2 on 16.05.2006 and Opposite Party No. 2 came at the house of the petitioner but subsequently, petitioner came to know about the character and behaviour of the Opposite Party No. 2 and after that he filed some criminal cases as well as divorce suit against Opposite Party No. 2. Learned counsel for 3 the petitioner further contended that in divorce suit, notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 2 but in spite of service of notice, she chose not to appear before the Court as a result of which an ex parte decree of divorce was passed in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that when decree of divorce was passed and several criminal cases were lodged by the petitioner against Opposite Party No. 2, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed the present case i.e. Tarapur P.S. Case No. 18/2008 in retaliation to the above stated cases and as a matter of fact, the entire story of the Opposite Party No. 2 is concocted and baseless. He further submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Munger while passing order dated 11.06.2009 overlooked the aforesaid facts and passed the impugned order which is not valid in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. On the basis of aforesaid submissions learned counsel for the petitioner sought quashing of entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 1076/2008 including order dated 11.06.2009 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 1076/2008. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned order arguing that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Munger has clearly observed in order dated 11.06.2009 that there was sufficient material on case diary vide Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 16 to frame charges against the petitioner. 4 After hearing, the contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record. The petitioner has sought the quashing of his prosecution as well as the impugned order dated 11.06.2009 on two grounds. Firstly, he sought quashing of his prosecution on the ground that much prior to filing of Tarapur P.S. Case No. 18/2008 by Opposite Party No. 2, he had already filed several criminal cases and divorce suit against the Opposite Party No. 2 and secondly, there was no material on the case diary to frame charge against the petitioner. In my view, both the aforesaid grounds have no leg to stand because the defence of the petitioner would be considered at the time of framing of the charge and he may place his defence before the Trial Court in course of trial at appropriate stage. So far as second ground is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Munger has clearly referred several paragraphs of the case diary mentioning this fact that aforesaid paragraphs are sufficient to frame charge against the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, in my view, this petition is devoid of merit and must be dismissed on admission stage itself. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed on admission stage itself. Kamlesh (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)