IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45032 of 2007 Sapna Kumari @ Sapna Chakravarty, d/o Late K. Kumar, resident of Railway Quarter No. 178 A, Railway Officer‟s Colony, Patna, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna, permanent resident of C/o Dr. S. Chakravarty, Manpur, Near Muffsil More, P. S. Manpur, District- Gaya, Pin Code- 823003. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Smt. Bimla Kumari, daughter of late Vishnudayal, resident of village- Khaira, P.S. Punpun, District- Patna at present posted as Telephone Operator Central Telephone Exchange, G.P.O., Patna. .. Opposite party. ----------- 3. 26.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for opposite party no. 2 The impugned order passed by the court below rejecting the prayer for discharge in terms of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon being affirmed by revisional court by order dated 6.12.2004 has been sought to be assailed before this Court on a ground that there is no material to constitute the offence under Sections 380/323 of the Indian Penal Code. In the opinion of this Court, paragraph 6 to 10 of the complaint petition by itself would be sufficient to constitute such offence which reads as follows:- “….6. That the complainant was always tortured mentally and physically by the accused no. 1 for the sake of money apart from illicit relation with accused no. 2 as stated above. 7. That the accused no. 1 2 always put pressure upon the complainant to give entire monthly salary to him and when she did not oblige him then she was mentally and physically tortured by him. 8. That the complainant is not only maintaining herself from her monthly salary but she also used to spend handsome money towards education expenses of his only son Kumar Anupam and due to that she could not save much salary. 9. That once the complainant was beaten by the accused no. 1 in the month of Nov. 2000 and when she went to Gandhi Maidan P. S. and informed the police officer regarding assault then accused no. 1 was called on at Gandhi Maidan P. S. where he confessed his guilt on 30.11.2000 and gave a written apology not to commit „marpit‟ and will not keep any illicit relation with another woman. 10. That the accused no. 1 and 2 compelled the complainant to leave the quarter of the accused no. 1 and her entire ornaments of worth Rs. Fifty thousand (50,000/- have been kept by both of them (accused no. 1 and 2) and apart from that the accused no. 1 also snatched the sale deed in the name of the complainant and other official valuable document. …” The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, the complainant was not the first wife rather a maid who has her evil eyes over the property of the petitioner is only to be noted for its being rejected. At the time of considering the prayer for discharge, the defence of the petitioner was not to be 3 looked into. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Apex Court with pointed reference to paragraph 10 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and another, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 188, seems to be wholly misplaced inasmuch as Apex Court after referring to earlier cases on the subject has in fact itself put a clear note of caution as with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the following words:- “…10. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the 4 case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in the court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. ..” Since it has been already held by this Court that paragraph 6 to 10 of the complaint petition do make 5 out a prima facie case against the petitioner, the ratio of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ravi Shankar (supra) far from supporting the petitioner would actually go against him. That being so, this court does not find any merit in this application. This application is, accordingly dismissed with a direction to trial court to proceed with the trial and conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)