CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17298 OF 2007 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- 1. SHEO KUMAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SHRI HARI BANSH NARAIN SINGH 2. DAYA DEVI, WIFE OF SHEO KUMAR PRASAD SINGH 3. NARSINGH NARAIN SINGH, SON OF SHEO KUMAR PRASAD SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHANAWAN, POLICE STATION BARH, DISTRICT PATNA. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRIYA DEVI, WIFE OF NARSINGH NARAIN SINGH, DAUGHTER OF GOPAL SHARAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ABU MOHAMADPUR, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. AT PRESENT C/O SRI MURARI SINGH, RAJENDRA NAGAR, POLICE STATION KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : M/S S.N. Choudhary, Adv. Love Kush Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 10.1.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.2491(C) of 2002. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that 2 opposite party no.2, who was married with petitioner no.3 in the year 1999, filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.2491(C) of 2002 against six accused persons including the three petitioners. It was alleged in the complaint that after solemnization of marriage, the accused persons started demanding a Maruti Car or Rs.2 lac in lieu thereof. Due to non- fulfilment, she was mentally and physically tortured by the accused persons and finally she returned back to her parents’ house and thereafter, the complaint was filed. After conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Before the charge, witnesses were examined, who supported the allegation made in the complaint petition. Subsequently, a discharge petition was filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate has rejected the same by its order dated 10.1.2007. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioners have approached this Court by 3 filing the present petition. 4. Mr. S.N. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the impugned order, submits that petitioner no.1 was General Manager in ESSAR Project Ltd. and posted at Jam Nagar. It has further been submitted that the complainant was provided a job by petitioner no.1 and thereafter, she started to do job at Baroda in Gujarat along with her husband. It has further been submitted that the complainant voluntarily left the house of her husband and started to reside with her parents at Bakhtiyarpur. It has further been submitted that the complainant’s intention was to extract huge amount from the petitioners and as such false complaint petition was filed by opposite party no.2. I have also heard Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 5. In this case, opposite party no.2 had appeared through her advocate, but at the time of hearing, none appeared on her behalf. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, I have 4 also perused the contents of the complaint petition and the impugned order. I do not find any defect in the order of rejection of discharge petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 8.1.2008 stands automatically vacated. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT The 3rd November,2010 Md.S/N.A.F.R.