CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.18400 OF 2007 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ----------------- 1. Manju Devi, wife of Prem Shekhar Jha. 2. Sangeeta Kumari, daughter of Prem Shekhar Jha. All residents of Mohalla: Sadhugachhi, Shekhpur, Akharaghat, P.S.: Ahiyapur, District: Muzaffarpur. ………….Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Madhusudan Mishra, son of Sri Krishna Chandra Mishra, resident of Mohalla: Akharaghat, Shekhpur, Bank Colony, P.S.: Ahiyapur, District:Muzaffarpur. ……….Opposite Parties. ------------ For the petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, Advocate Mr. Radheshyam Kumar, Advocate For the O.P.: Mr. Arvind Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Two 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 27.09.2006 passed by Sri Awadhesh Kumar Dubey, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 2669 of 2004 (Trial No. 2153 of 2007). By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under sections 323, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that the Opposite Party 2 No. 2 had filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 2669 of 2004 arraying therein three persons as accused, namely, Prem Shekhar Jha. Manju Devi wife of Prem Shekhar Jha and Sangeeta Kumari daughter of Prem Shekhar Jha, who are petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that complainant was residing in the house of petitioners as a tenant. The complainant was pressurized by husband of the petitioner no. 1, Manju Devi to solemnize marriage with his daughter i.e. petitioner no. 2. It has also been alleged that the husband of the petitioner no. 1 had got prepared a dependant identity card showing the complainant as his son. Subsequently, the complainant left the house and thereafter the husband of the petitioner no. 1 on the date of occurrence i.e. on 02.11.2004 arrived to the house of the complainant along with other unknown persons and assaulted him. It was alleged that husband of the petitioner no. 1 was pressurizing the complainant to solemnize marriage with his daughter. It was alleged that the husband of petitioner no. 1 snatched a wrist watch and some amount from the pocket of the complainant was also forcibly taken. After conducting 3 inquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences, as mentioned above. 3. Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, at the very outset submits that it is true that name of petitioners were shown in the accused column of the complaint petition but in the entire complaint petition, it has not been whispered as to how and under what circumstances, both the petitioners have committed any offence. On the sole ground i.e. absence of any accusation, it has been prayed to set aside the order of cognizance. 4. Mr. Arvind Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has supported the stand taken by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials as well as complaint petition. After going through the complaint petition, the Court is satisfied that nothing has been said against the petitioners regarding commission of any offence and their 4 involvement. It appears that due to the reason that petitioner no. 1 was the wife of accused, Prem Shekhar Jha and petitioner no. 2 is daughter of accused Prem Shekhar Jha, they have been arrayed as accused in the complaint petition. In absence of any material to show their involvement the Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has incorrectly taken cognizance of offence against the two petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 27.09.2006 passed by Sri Awadhesh Kumar Dubey, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 2669 of 2004 (Trial No. 2153 of 2007) so far as petitioners are concerned is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated: the 18th November, 2010 Anjani/NAFR (Rakesh Kumar, J)