Dismissed

Most Chintamani Singh v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC24 Sept 2012CR. MISC./17191/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arguing a fresh trial was barred due to prior discharge on similar allegations. Court dismissed petition as new charges pertained to distinct occurrences post-earlier discharge.

What did the court decide?

prayer to quash the order dated 26.6.2009 and order dated 5.4.2010 and set aside entire criminal proceedings rejected

Most Chintamani Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17191 of 2010

¶2

====================================================== Most Chintamani Singh wife of Late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh resident of Mohalla - A 180, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Manju Kumari wife of Sri Bhagwan Singh & daughter of Sri Gopal Jee , resident of Village -Bari Badalpura Khagaul, P.S.-Khagaul, District -Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶3

8 24-09-2012 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Smt. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Anjani Kumar Jha, learned counsel for complainant / opposite party no. 2.

¶4

The sole petitioner, who is mother-in-law of complainant / opposite party no. 2 has approached this court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash order dated 26.6.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1248(C) of 2007, whereby, the learned

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17191 of 2010 (8) dt.24-09-2012

¶6

2 / 5

¶7

Magistrate has rejected the prayer of petitioner for discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of an order dated 5.4.2010 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Patna. The learned District & Sessions Judge has rejected Cr. Revision No. 673 of 2009 which was preferred against order of rejection of prayer for discharge. At the time of argument Sri Thakur has also prayed for setting aside entire criminal proceeding though no such specific prayer has been made in the petition.

¶8

The ground for assailing both the orders as well as for quashing of entire criminal proceeding is that for the same accusation petitioner and her son were put on trial in Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 300 of 2002 and after full fledged trial the petitioner and her son were discharged by learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 911 of 2002. It was submitted that earlier a case was instituted for offence under Sections 307, 498(A) & 504 of the Indian Penal Code which was committed to the court of Sessions and after full fledged trial the petitioner and other accused were discharged by learned Sessions Judge in afore-referred Sessions Trial. He submits that once on the same allegation petitioner was put on trial and was discharged, on the same

¶9

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17191 of 2010 (8) dt.24-09-2012

¶10

3 / 5

¶11

allegation petitioner can not be put on trial again. He submits that the present proceeding is completely barred under Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. In support of his argument he has also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2012 CRI. L.J. 2432 (Supreme Court) (Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel

¶12

v. State of Gujarat & Anr.) .

¶13

Smt. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

¶14

In this case a counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the complainant. It was submitted that earlier after the case i.e. Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 300 of 2002 was committed to the court of Sessions and while trial commenced the accused persons persuaded the complainant to settle the dispute outside the court. It was submitted that since offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was not compoundable, the complainant and all her witnesses only with a view to get the case disposed of did not support the prosecution case. She further submits that the learned Trial Judge has also noticed in its judgment dated 17^th January, 2007 in Sessions Trial No. 911 of 2002 that outside court compromise in between the parties has already taken place. However, since the husband of the complainant and

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17191 of 2010 (8) dt.24-09-2012

¶16

4 / 5

¶17

the present accused had started to keep the complainant respectfully as wife of son of the petitioner the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case and due to that reason the accused persons were acquitted. She submits that regarding compromise the learned Sessions Judge has discussed in paragraph no. 8 of its judgment the evidence of the complainant who was examined as P.W. 1. The P.W. 1 had turned vault to the prosecution case. This fact has been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge. She submits that after the petitioner and her son got acquittal order they again started torturing the complainant and she was ousted from her inlaws house. She has referred number of paragraphs of the complaint petition particularly paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9 & 10. She further submits that now charges have already been framed. She has referred to Annexure – ‘D’ Series to the counter affidavit and submits that on 15^th May, 2010, charge under Sections 498A & 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the petitioner. I have also perused the charge which has been framed against the petitioner and copy of the same has been brought on record which is at page no. 30 of the counter affidavit and running page no. 74 of the brief. First charge i.e. offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code indicates that charge has

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17191 of 2010 (8) dt.24-09-2012

¶19

5 / 5

¶20

been framed on an accusation that from 18^th day of January, 2007 to 30^th day of April, 2007 at A-180, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, being the husband and mother-in-law of the victim Manju Kumari had subjected her to cruelty for not fulfilling unlawful demand of dowry. This indicates that a charge has been framed for an occurrence which was not subject matter in the earlier Sessions Trial. Similarly, charge no. 2 for offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code makes it clear that the petitioner and her son have not been charged for an accusation which was subject matter of the earlier case.

¶21

In view of the fact that petitioner has been charged for an offence committed after the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No. 911 of 2002, the petitioner can not get any advantage either under Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. or on the basis of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Case (Supra) as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any ground for interference in the matter. The petition stands dismissed.

¶22

(Rakesh Kumar, J)

¶23

Praful/-

Most Chintamani Singh v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most Chintamani Singh v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaywantkumar Choudhary and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Dr. Dilip Chaudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Bhusan Yadav and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Kumar Arvind Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Dharmendra Brahamchari @ Munna Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Manju Devi Vs the Union of India