Criminal Miscellaneous No.27253 OF 1998 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- ROOPA AGIWAL @ RUPA KHIMJI W/o Sri Manoj Agiwal, resident at B.Poonam Chambers, Dr.A.B. Road, Mumbai – 400018 …… ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.M/s Poddar Enterprises, Patna, a proprietorship firm having its place of business at C/O Rani Sati Traders Hotel Line, P.S.-Kotwali, in the town and Dist.-Patna through its Propietor, Shiv Kumar Poddar. ….Opp.Party. ------- For the petitioner: Mr.Gurmit Singh and Mrigant Mauly For opposite party no.2: Mr. S.D.Sanjay For the State : Mr. A.K.Khatre, APP. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------ Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.5.1997 passed by Sri Vimal Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.288(C) of 1997. By the said order the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under sections 406, 420 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The short fact of the case is that complainant M/s Poddar Enterprises filed a complaint petition vide Complaint Case No.288(C) of 1997 arraying M/s Nemaru Coiffure, a partnership firm, as accused no.1 and petitioner as accused no.3. It has been alleged that the petitioner was partner/Chief Executive of M/s Nemaru Coiffure. In the complaint it was alleged that the complainant was doing some business with accused persons and the complainant had deposited security money of rupees one lakh for C & F Jaipur and rupees fifteen thousand for C & F Patna. It 2 has been alleged in the complaint petition that for few years the business continued smoothly but subsequently dispute arose and, as such, a sum of rupees one lakh eighty thousand of the complainant remained due against the accused persons. It was asserted that by different credit notes it was assured that the complainant will be compensated for an amount of rupees seventy thousand. However, the credit notes were also not honoured and the complainant had suffered a loss of rupees one lakh eighty thousand. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that the dispute, prima facie, appears to be a civil dispute and due to accountancy dispute the present complaint was filed by the complainant. He further argued that it is the complainant who withheld some money of accused no.1 of the complaint case. He also argued that the petitioner is completely house wife and she has no concern with the business affairs of the partnership firm and accordingly he submits that allowing the prosecution of this petitioner will amount to abuse of process of the court. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of cognizance, had approached this court by filing the present petition in the year 1998. By order dated 16.2.1999 a Bench of this court while adjourning the case to 23.2.1999 directed that till then no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. Subsequently, on 13.4.1999 this application was admitted for hearing and it was directed that further proceeding as regards the 3 petitioner in Complaint Case No.288(C) of 1997 in the court below shall remain stayed till the disposal of this application and stay is continuing till date. 5. Without going into the merit of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner being house wife having no concern with the business in question may not be allowed to face prosecution in the present case that too after such a long delay. 6. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 3.5.1997, so far as it relates to this petitioner, is set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court The 31st March, 2010. Md.S./NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)