CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.20914 OF 2005 ( IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ) * * * * * 1.SMT.RIMA SINGH @ RIMA SHAHI, D/O SHRI SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF D-3, TAKSHILA APARTMENT, 57, INDRA PRASTHA EXTENSION, P.S MANDAWALI, NEW DELHI – 110092 2.SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE KAMLESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF D-3, TAKSHILA APARTMENT, 57, INDRA PRASTHA EXTENSION, P.S. MANDAWALI, NEW DELHI – 110092, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 71-A, SECTOR-1, SHAKTI NAGAR, BHOPAL, M.P. 3.SHASHI RANJAN PRASAD, S/O SHRI CHATURBHUJ RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MORAPUR, P.S. SAKRA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT A- 115, ALKAPURI, BHOPAL. ……….PETITIONERS Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.KARUNESH KUMAR SHAHI, S/O SHRI RAM DEWAN SHAHI, RESIDENT OF P.O.- M.I.T., P.S. AHIYAPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ……..OPPOSITE PARTIES FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. S.D. SANJAY & MR. GOPAL PRASAD GUPTA, ADVOCATES FOR THE STATE :- MR. DAMODAR PRASAD TIWARY, A.P.P. * * * * * P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA * * * * * Akhilesh Chandra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Pushkar Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of - 2 - the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 22.09.2004 passed by Sri A.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 579(C) of 2004, taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Undisputedly, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case bearing 579(C) of 2004 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur against the petitioners, who are none else then his own relatives, such as, petitioner no. 1 is brother’s wife of the complainant, petitioner no.2 is her father and petitioner no. 3 is her brother-in-law, stating therein that petitioner no. 1 requested the complainant to get her marriage registered at Muzaffarpur. It was refused on the ground that the marriages are being registered at the place where it takes place and since she was married at Delhi, so it will be registered there only. Reacting thereon petitioner no. 1 replied that her father and brother-in-law (remaining two petitioners) are so influential that they may get it done at Bhopal, but since signature of father of the complainant i.e. father-in-law of petitioner no. 1 is also required, she sought approval from the complainant to get it done from other person, which was prohibited by the complainant. However, as alleged on 11.11.1997, the petitioner no. 1 in collusion with others with forged signature of father of the complainant got her marriage registered. It is also alleged that in a Court - 3 - before Delhi, she has stated that her marriage was performed at Chanakya Place, New Delhi, whereas in the application for registration, it has been stated as 115-A, Alkapuri, Bhopal. The complainant could know all such fraudulent act when his brother produced the original certificate before him. 4. During enquiry on behalf of the complainant four witnesses were examined, on consideration whereof the court below took cognizance giving rise to instant case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order submits that the complaint case has been filed just to harass the petitioners, specially petitioner no. 1, who is prosecuting matrimonial cases, both civil and criminal at Delhi against her husband and other family members, including the complainant and the compliant petition contains nothing to show any wrong committed by the petitioners nor any document was filed before the court below nor the Court concerned at Muzaffarpur has any jurisdiction to proceed with. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, while supporting the impugned order submitted that required documents were produced before the court below, who on consideration of everything quashed the impugned order, which needs no interference. 6. On bare reading of the complaint petition coupled with statement of the complainant on solemn - 4 - affirmation it appears that there might have been some conversations between petitioner no. 1 and complainant for registration of her marriage with brother of the complainant some time in the year 1997, but for own reasons it was the complainant who refused to provide any help to petitioner no. 1, who is prosecuting matrimonial cases at Delhi, civil and Criminal. 7. From the impugned order, it appears that court below has perused the complaint petition, statement of four witnesses besides statement of complainant solemn affirmation and passed the impugned order, no document was examined by the Court, though it appears from order dated 20.05.2004 that some documents were filed on behalf of the complainant, but there is nothing to show what were the documents filed before the Court. 8. Undisputedly, nothing happened at Muzaffarpur, so the Court at Muzaffarpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition with respect to the offences, if at all committed by the petitioners at Bhopal. 9. The complainant, who is silent on the point of filing of such marriage certificate obtained from Bhopal, in any Court, where in proceedings between the parties are going on had it been filed? The Court concerned may have examined the genuineness and on objection of other sides, pass appropriate order, even lodge the complainant against - 5 - the wrong doer, but in absence of any such document, this Court failed to appreciate how any offence is committed and complaint is entertained. 10. It also appears that perhaps the complaint petition has been filed in person vengeance to force the petitioners, who are prosecuting cases at Delhi against the complainant and his family members to come at Muzaffarpur and face the litigation etc. The Law prohibits entertainment and further continuance of such complaints/F.I.R., which prima facie appear to be filed and get criminal proceeding initiated with ulterior motive. 11. In view of the above and further finding that the case is squarely covered under more than one criteria’s as laid down in a case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. Accordingly, this application stands allowed, impugned order and the complaint petition both have been quashed. Patna High Court Date:18th August, 2010 Praveen/- ( Akhilesh Chandra, J. )