Criminal Miscellaneous No.20641 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------------- Veena Pani Sarkar,daughter of Late Jagdish Chandra Sarkar, Advocate, resident of Mohalla- Haziganj, Police Station Chowk, Patna City, District-Patna, at present posted as Probation Officer, Hilsa, District- Nalanda ------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Yasoda Devi, Wife of Shri Ramashankar Dubey, resident of Village-Dadra, Police Station-Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur, at present resident of Ward No.9 in the town of Bhabhua, Police Station-Bhabhua, District-Kaimur ----------------- Opp.Parties. ------------------- For the petitioner : S/Shri Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Sr.Advocate Shyameshwar Day, Mukeshwar Dayal & Nirmala Kumari, Advocates For Opp.Party no.2 : S/Sri Ravi Shankar Sahay, and Ajay Nandan Sahay, Advocates For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ------------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar,J. Sri Ravi Shankar Sahay , learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 files a counter affidavit on behalf of son of Opp.Party no.2. Let it be kept on record. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 24.5.1999 passed by Sri S.D.Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhabhua in Trial No. 27 of 1999, arising out of Complaint Case No.300(C ) of 1995. By order dated 24.5.1999, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2 2. Short fact of the case is that a complaint was filed by Smt. Yasoda Devi vide Complaint Case No.300( C) of 1995, in which she disclosed that her marriage was solemnized with one Sri Rama Shankar Dubey about 35-36 years back. Subsequently, in the year 1968-69 , Rama Shankar Dubey was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter he started residing separately and he developed relation with the petitioner . Thereafter, the petitioner and husband of the complainant started living as husband and wife. It was alleged that the complainant was repeatedly tortured by her husband and on one occasion, while the husband of the complainant was assaulting her, it was alleged in the complaint petition that this petitioner snatched her golden chain. Accordingly, a complaint petition was filed for offences under Sections 323,379,540 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a quashing application vide Cr.Misc.No.7851 of 1996. However, the same was disposed of with observation that if at the stage of framing of charge, a petition for discharge is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit. The said order was passed on 11.2.1997, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. Accordingly, at the stage of charge, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for her discharge. The petitioner denied the allegations made in the complaint petition. However, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the same. While pressing the discharge petition before the learned Magistrate, it was argued that 3 even the daughter of the complainant had denied regarding commission of any occurrence. However, the learned Magistrate has rejected the same. 4. During the pendency of the present petition, the complainant as well as her husband, who was accused no.1 i.e. the main accused died. Accordingly, at the time of argument Sri Shakeel Ahmad Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of death of the complainant and the main accused, that too, in a complaint case where charge has not yet been framed, allowing further proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the court. He has also argued that allegation of snatching of the chain was only ornamental. However, there was no material on record to corroborate the said allegation. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order of rejection of discharge petition as well as entire prosecution in respect of only remaining accused person in the complaint case. 5. Sri Ravi Shankar Sahay, who was earlier appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2, has filed an affidavit indicating therein that during the pendency of the present petition, both complainant and the husband of the complainant died. However, he has opposed the prayer for quashing of the prosecution. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials on record. In the present complaint, there were only two accused and allegation against the husband of the complaint was the main allegation and it was alleged against the petitioner that 4 she participated along with her husband in the occurrence. 7. In view of death of the complainant , in the complaint case where till the date of charge has not been framed , there would be no purpose to allowing continuation of the said prosecution , particularly in a case where the complaint petition was filed long back in the year 1995. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly in view of death of the complainant and the main accused, this Court is of the opinion that allowing further prosecution on the basis of such a complaint will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case with a view to prevent abuse of the process of the court it is necessary to interfere with the impugned order even while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Accordingly, order dated 24.5.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case No.300 (C) of 1995 and also the entire prosecution are hereby quashed. Petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 6th July,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J)