IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53845 of 2007 BIBI NISHAN @ NISAT AZMA W/O ABU REHAZ R/O GEHUA, P.S. JALALGARH, DISTT. PURNEA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. TALAT SHAMSHI W/O MD. MAHMOOD, R/O BANSBARI, P.S. & DISTT. ARARIA AT PRESENT D/O SHAMSHUL HODA, R/O BASANTPUR, P.S. & DISTT. ARARIA. 3. MD. MAHMOOD S/O MD. RAFIQUDDIN AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MAHMOOD SAH LANE, LSABZIBAGH, BANK COLONY, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTT. PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 9. 1.10.2010. 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 19.1.2007 passed by Shri S.N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Araria in Complaint Case No.2432 of 2006. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.2432 of 2006 alleging therein that she was married to Accused No.1, Md. Mahmood in the year 2004 and after the marriage. After the marriage, while she was 2 being carried to her in-laws house even on way, certain allegations were made against the petitioner and other relatives. In the complaint petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner was relative of her husband being wife of brother of her husband (Bhabhi). In the complaint petition, it was also alleged that the complainant’s husband was having illicit relation with the petitioner and due to that the petitioner was also participating in torturing the complainant. Giving a detailed picture in the complaint petition regarding commission of offence, the complaint was filed. After filing the complaint, enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 19.1.2007, took cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. In the complaint petition, ten persons were arrayed as accused and petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.10. Besides this, the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of 3 the Indian Penal Code against some of the accused persons including the petitioner. It was further alleged that after some time i.e. in the year 2006, the complainant was ousted from the house of her in-laws due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, has virtually placed the entire contents of the complaint petition before this court. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was not closely related to the husband of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(6) SCC 757 (S. Sureshta Vs. State). It has been submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that girl friend or concubine cannot be termed as relative and as such they cannot be 4 prosecuted for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior Counsel has emphasized that from the complaint petition, no case is made out against the petitioner or rather the allegation appears to be not probable. On aforesaid grounds, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned order. Shri Ravindra Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He has submitted that in the entire complaint petition, there is specific allegation against this petitioner along with the husband of the complainant and within two years from the date of marriage, finally the complainant was ousted from her in-laws house even though the complainant had become mother of a baby. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 that while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure particularly at the stage of cognizance, this Court may not scrutinize 5 the case of defence in detail and, accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the petition. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State. She supports lthe stand taken by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including the complaint petition. In the complaint petition, besides specific allegation against the petitioner, it was also asserted that this petitioner was residing just by the flat of the husband of the complainant. In the complaint petition, there is specific averment that this petitioner was closely associated with the husband of the complainant and she was relative being wife of cousin brother of the husband of the complainant. Right from the very beginning, it was asserted in the complaint petition that this petitioner regularly along with husband of the 6 complainant, was torturing the complainant. It has also been alleged that the husband of the complainant was having illicit relation with this petitioner. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances, the court is of the view that there is no material available on record warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. So far as S. Sureshta’s case (Supra) is concerned, in the case, it has been held that a girl friend or concubine may not be associated as accused for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The present case stands entirely on different footing. In the complaint petition, there is specific averment that this petitioner was close relative being wife of cousin brother of the husband of the complainant. Accordingly, I do not find that the petitioner can get any help from the judgment of S. Sureshta’s case (Supra). In view of the facts and circumstances, the petition stands rejected. 7 N.H./ In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 26.3.2010 stands automatically vacated. Keeping in view the fact that the order of cognizance was passed on 7.3.2007 and matter remained pending before this court for a long time, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without any delay. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. It is made clear that whatever observation has been recorded in the present has been recorded for the purpose of deciding the present case. The petitioner may not be prejudiced at any subsequent stage by this order. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)