BASANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, who is husband of opposite party no.2, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.3.1998 passed by Shri A.K. Thakur, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawadah in G.R. No.638 of 1997/Tr. No.463 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and others for discharge.

(2.) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that opposite party no.2, who was wife of the petitioner, on 26.8.1996 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.319 of 1996 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah. Subsequently, the complaint was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, first information report vide Nadriganj P.S. Case No.29 of 1997 was registered on 2.5.1997 for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that after registering the case, the police investigated the same and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted in the case. Subsequent to the submission of charge sheet, the court took cognizance. At the stage of charge, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner and other accused persons for their discharge and by order dated 31.7.1998, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawadah rejected the discharge petition. At the stage of hearing on discharge petition, sole ground was taken on behalf of the petitioner that on the date of filing of the complaint, the complainant was not wife of the petitioner and as such on a petition of stranger, first information report was not required to be lodged for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In the present case while challenging the order of rejection of discharge petition dated 31.7.1998, learned counsel for the petitioner has again confined his argument to the point that the opposite party no.2 was not entitled to institute a case under section 498A and others sections of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to annexure-2 which is an ex-parte judgment and order dated 11th March, 1996 passed in Misc. Suit No.29A of 1994 submits that a competent court had already passed a decree of divorce against opposite party no.2. The order was passed on 11.3.1996. He submits that it is not in dispute that opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint on 26.8.1996 i.e. after the decree of divorce. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceeding on the said complaint is liable to be set aside including the order whereby the discharge petition was rejected, is also liable to be set aside.