Criminal Miscellaneous No.24072 OF 1998 ----- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ----- 1.MAHABIR PRASAD @ MAHABIR RAM son of Ramchandra Prasad 2.Sheoji Prasad son of Mahabir Ram 3.Mohan Prasad son of Mahabir Ram 4.Bigani Devi wife of Mahabir Ram 5.Rita Devi wife of Sheoji Prasad 6.Geeta Devi wife of Mohan Prasad All are residents of Mohalla Ghasiyarpatti, P.S.Bettiah Town, Dist.- West Champaran ---- ----Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Rajeshwar Prasad son of Kuer Prasad resident of Kasba Chanpatia, P.S.-Chanpatia, Dist.- West Champaran ----- -----Opposite party ----- For the petitioners: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar No.1. For the State:Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, A.P.P. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ----- Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.8.1998 passed by Sri Prem Kumar Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in Trial No.576 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. The present petition was admitted on 23.8.1999. At the time of admission, petition filed on behalf of petitioner no.1, Mahabir Prasad @ Mahabir Ram, who was father-in-law of the victim lady and petition in respect of - 2 - petitioner no.4, Bigani Devi, mother-in-law stood rejected. Now only case of petitioner nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 is before this court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that neither in the first information report, there is any specific averment against these petitioners indicating their involvement in commission of offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code particularly allegation leading to demand of dowry nor during investigation further materials could be collected by the investigating agency against these petitioners. Learned counsel has further referred to Annexure-2 to the petition, which is an order passed in Title Suit No.90 of 1995. He submits that so far as petitioner nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are concerned, they were living separately. There was partition in between these petitioners and husband of the victim lady. He submits that there was no occasion for these petitioners to commit the offence which has been alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the definition of Section 498A of I.P.C., material which has been brought on record is not - 3 - sufficient to attract the said provision. He submits that in the last portion of the first information report, though it has been alleged that all these petitioners were also physically and mentally torturing the victim lady, there is no evidence that such torturing were being made for the purpose of extracting dowry. He has placed Sub Clause(b)of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is as follows:- 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruely shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to thee years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her to any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 3. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of - 4 - the order dated 24.8.1998 passed in Trial No.576 of 1998 whereby their discharge petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that while hearing on discharge petition only requirement is to see as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not. He submits that materials on record particularly the contents of the first information report makes it clear that all the petitioners had committed offence as alleged by the informant. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the present petition. 5. I have also examined the materials available on record. After registering the first information report, police investigated the case and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted. Subsequently, the court took cognizance of the offence. I am of the view that, while rejecting the discharge petition filed by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate had committed no error. The learned Magistrate had examined the materials available on record minutely and thereafter, by way of assigning a detail and - 5 - sound reasons by the impugned order he has rejected the discharge petition. In case of rejection of discharge petition, in any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to charge, there is no requirement to assign a detail reason. However, if in a case where discharge is necessary, the learned Magistrate/court is required to assign reason. Moreover, in the present case, the learned Magistrate has examined the materials in detail and had given specific reason for rejection of discharge petition. The contents of the first information report also indicates regarding commission of offence as alleged by the informant. So far as Annexure-2 i.e. order passed in a civil suit i.e. Title Suit No.90 of 1995 is concerned, I am of the view that the petitioners can refer or rely on those orders/documents at the stage of defence during the trial. It is not advisable for this Court to examine all those documents, which were not brought on record by the investigating agency. 5. In view of the facts indicated above, I do not find any error in the order of rejection of discharge petition. I do not find - 6 - any merit in the petition and accordingly, this petition stands rejected. 6. This court, While admitting the petition by its order dated 23.8.1999, had directed that further proceeding as regards the above named petitioners in Trial no.576 of 1998 in the court below shall remain stayed. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 7. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. (Rakesh Kumar,J.) Patna High Court The 26th March 2010 Md.S./NAFR