CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3241 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------- Kedar Mahto, Son of Late Kailash Mahto, resident of Village- Sarwa, Police Station-Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura , at present F.C.I. , New Godown Railway Station, Jammu Tabi, Kashmir ------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Pyari Devi, Wife of Kedar Mahto, resident of Village-Sarwa, Police Station-Barbigha, District-Sheikhpura ---- Opp.Parties. ------------ For the petitioner: Sri Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp.Party no.2: None. 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. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 6.1.2001 passed by Sri S.B.Prasad, A.C.J.M., Sheikhpura in Barbigha P.S. Case No.56 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.57 C of 2000 in the court of the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura with an allegation that about 30 years ago she was married with the petitioner and from 1997 to February 2000, the complainant was harassed and also assaulted by the petitioner. The said complaint was referred to the police for registration of the case and its investigation under Section 156(3) of the 2 Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, an F.I.R. vide Barbigha P.S. Case No.56 of 2000 was registered on 7.3.2000. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet and thereafter by the impugned order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence, as mentioned above. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was initially heard on 25.1.2002 and on the date the petitioner was directed to implead the informant of the case as Opp.Party no.2. The Court thereafter called for the case diary on the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there was no evidence against the petitioner in the case diary. Subsequently, on 23.9.2002 the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in Barbigha P.S. Case No.56 of 2000 pending before A.C.J.M., Sheikhpura shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. None has come forward on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 despite the fact that Opp.Party no.2 has entered her appearance through her counsel. I have also perused the Case diary. 5. Of course, at the time of hearing of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not required to examine the case diary, but since in the present case at the time of admission itself on the basis of averment made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court had called for the case diary. I have perused the 3 same. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, I have also perused the materials available on record including the case diary. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the petitioner has rightly contended in his petition that number of witnesses had categorically stated that the petitioner was posted at Jammu Tabi in the F.C.I. and for last 7-8 years ,from the date of filing of the F.I.R. he had not come to the village, i.e. the place of occurrence, as alleged by Opp.Party no.2. It further appears that during the investigation, it was found that Opp.Party no.2 was having illicit relation with a co-villager. It was pleaded in the petition that the present case was instituted by the informant at the instance of one of the agnates of the petitioner. On the basis of materials available on record including the case diary, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution against the petitioner was initiated maliciously and falsely. The Court is of the view that this is a fit case for exercising inherent power in favour of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 6.1.2001 passed by Sri S.B.Prasad, A.C.J.M., Sheikhpura in Barbigha P.S. Case No.56 of 2000 ,so far as petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 4th August,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )