CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6430 OF 2002 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- ROKHSANA KHATOON @ RUKSANA KHATOON W/o Md.Salim D/o Md.Amin, resident of village- Madarpur, P.S.-Basantpur, Dist.-Siwan, at present residing at village-Trilokwa Rghunathpur, P.S.-Keshariya Dist.-East Champaran. …… …….Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Alim Miyan son of late Sudhu Miyan, resident of village- Madarpur, P.S.-Basantpur, Dist.-Siwan …….. ……..Opp.Parties. ------- For the petitioner: None For the State: Nirmala Kumari, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar,J. When the case was called out none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. Despite service of notice, opposite party no.2 has not chosen to appear in this case. However, I have heard Mrs. Nirmala Kumari learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. I have also perused the materials available on the record. 3. The sole petitioner, who is daughter-in-law of opposite party no.2, has come before this court with a prayer to quash an order dated 14.12.2001 as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.C-705 of 2001. By the said order Mr.K.M.Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Siwan has taken cognizance of the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and directed for issuance of summons. 2 4. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint on 13.6.2001 disclosing therein that the petitioner was residing with the complainant, who was father-in-law as well as mother-in-law and the husband of the petitioner was doing some job away from in-laws house of the petitioner. It was alleged that on 6th December, 2000 father and other relatives of the petitioner came to the house of the complainant and, thereafter, against the wish of the complainant, the petitioner left the house of her in-laws and while leaving the house the petitioner and other accused persons took several house-hold articles from the house of the complainant, details of which were given on the foot of the complaint petition. After filing the complaint, enquiry was conducted and, thereafter, by the impugned order i.e. 14.12.2001 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Perusal of the record reveals that prior to filing of the present complaint, a complaint was filed on 9.1.2001 by the petitioner against her in-laws which was numbered as Complaint Case No.56 of 2001 for the offences under sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code in which cognizance order was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner was residing since 6.10.2000 at her parents house (Naihar). 5. After going through the materials available on the record, the court is of the opinion that the present complaint was filed not fairly and honestly rather it was filed maliciously. The allegations and averments of the complaint petition also appear to 3 Patna High Court The 20th August, 2010 Md.S./NAFR be not believable. The complaint petition was filed on 13.6.2001 whereas it was alleged in the complaint petition that alleged occurrence had taken place on 6th December, 2000. In such a situation, this court is of the view that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 14.12.2001 passed by K.M.Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No.C-705 of 2001 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)