CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17184 OF 2007 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------- 1.BAKSHI ARBIND KUMAR SINHA son of late Ram Prasad Sinha 2.Sheema Sinha W/o Bakshi Arbind Kumar Sinha Both residents of Mohalla-Shivganj, P.S.-Ara Town in the district of Bhojpur. …… …….Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Smt. Jyoti Lal W/o Bakshi Manindra Kumar Sinha D/o Sri Lala Prakash Chandra Lal, resident of Mohalla- Mansa Pandey Ka Bag, P.S.-Ara Town in the district of Bhojpur, presently residing at 120A, A.G.Colony, Patna …… ……Opp.Parties. ------- For the petitioners: Mr.Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. For Opp. Party No.2: Mr.Surendra Kumar Singh and Smt. Sudha Singh. For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar,J. Two petitioners, who are elder brother and wife of elder brother respectively of husband of opposite party no.2, have approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 17.2.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara in G.R. No.670 of 2003/1928 of 2007 arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No.51 of 2003. By the said order, learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of both the petitioners. It is second attempt by the petitioners for quashing of the order of rejection of discharge petition. Earlier also, after the order of rejection of discharge petition, both the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Cr. Misc.No.14685 2 of 2006, which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the court below for hearing the parties afresh and to pass a reasoned order on the discharge petition. In the light of the order dated 18.11.2006 passed in Cr. Misc. No.14685 of 2006, the matter was again heard and by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that initially opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.282C of 2003. Subsequently, the complaint was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, first information report vide Ara Town P.S. Case No.51 of 2003 was registered on 1.4.2003 for the offences under sections 498A, 379 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint petition that petitioner no.1 was elder brother of the husband of the complainant and petitioner no.2 was wife of petitioner no.1. After the marriage, both the petitioners had also tortured the complainant. After registration of the first information report, the police investigated the same and, thereafter, chargesheet was submitted. At the stage of charge prayer was made on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge by filing a petition under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was rejected on 27.2.2006 by Sub.Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ara. Against the order of discharge petition, the petitioners had earlier filed Cr.Misc. No.14685 of 2006. This court by its order 3 dated 18.12.2006 allowed the petition and remitted back the matter to the court below to pass speaking order after considering the points raised by the petitioners for discharge and, thereafter, the present impugned order was passed. 3. Mr.Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that during entire investigation it was found that the petitioners were living separately and they were having no good relation with the husband of the complainant. It has further been submitted that without any material both the petitioners were made accused and similarly their discharge petition was rejected by the concerned court. Mr. Singh has heavily relied upon a recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2010(4) PLJR 36 (Prity Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand). It has been submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down in Prity Gupta’s case (supra). 4. Mr.Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted by Mr.Singh that even in the first information report there is specific allegation against the petitioners. It has been pointed out that in the first information report it was mentioned that with a view of kill the complainant the accused persons poured five liters of Kerosene oil over the body of the complainant. Subsequently, petitioner no.2 had poured water of Surf so that smell of Kerosene oil may vanish. However, after alarm was raised by the complainant several people arrived there. It has 4 further been submitted that the learned Magistrate in its impugned order has discussed each and every points which were raised by the petitioners and assigning a detailed reason has passed the impugned order. I have also heard Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 5. On perusal of the impugned order the court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has assigned a detailed reason for rejection of discharge petition. This court is of the opinion that at the time of rejection of discharge petition there is no requirement for assigning detailed reason but in the present case there was a judicial order and, accordingly, the learned Magistrate has passed a detailed reasoned order. On perusal of the impugned order, the court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has committed no error. So far as Prity Gupta’s case (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute that Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated for initiating frivolous case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, however, the present case stands on different footing. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners cannot get any benefit from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Prity Gupta’s case (supra). 6. I do not find that the petitioners have made out an exceptional case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in their favour. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order 5 of stay dated 14.9.2007 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court, The 3rd November,2010 Md.S,/NAFR. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)