Mehadi Hassan And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41145 of 2013 In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure ===========================================================
1. Mehadi Hassan S/O Md. Noor Mohammad @@ Shekh Noor Mohammad Resident Of Village + P.O. - Ariyaon, P.S. - Krishnabrahm, District - Buxar
2. Noor Mohammad @ Shekh Noor Mohammad S/O (Not Known) Late Bechu Mohammad Resident Of Village + P.O. - Ariyaon, P.S. - Krishnabrahm, District - Buxar
3. Ashma Khatoon Wife Of Md. Noor Mohammad @ Shekh Noor Mohammad Resident Of Village + P.O. - Ariyaon, P.S. - Krishnabrahm, District - Buxar
4. Md. Anwar @ Shekh Md. Anwar S/O Md. Noor Mohammad @ Shekh Noor Mohammad Resident Of Cisf Unit Zc/Nfc, Pazahayakayal, District - Tuticorim, Timilnadu
5. Munni Khatoon @ Rukshana Nisha W/O Md. Qayum @ Shekh Abdul Qayum Dumraon, Ward No. 4, P.S. - Dumraon, District - Buxar
6. Soni Khatoon D/O Md. Sahabuddin Resident Of Village + P.S. - Chaugai, P.S. - Murar, District - Buxar
7. Md. Anwar @ Wife Of Md. Amar @ Praween Tabassum, W/O Md. Anwar @ Shekh Md. Anwar, W/O Md. Anwar @ Shekh Md. Anwar, Resident Of CISF Unit ZC/NFC, Pazahayakayal, District - Tuticorim, Timilnadu .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Farzana Khatoon W/O Mehadi Hassan Resident Of Village - Lala Toli Dumraon, P.S. - Dumraon, District - Buxar( Bihar) Present Address - Farzana Khatoon, D/O Sahzad Alam, Resident Of Village - Atasarai, P.S. - Islampur, District - Nalanda .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Mr. Anirudh Mishra, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Addl. P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA C A.V. JUDGMENT Date: 24-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners, by means of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated 07.06.2013, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa (Nalanda) in Complaint Case No. 1077 C of 2012 whereby and whereunder cognizance against the petitioners has been taken under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel pointed out towards certain documents and statements in support of his contention. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the Court's decision to
proceed against them in a given case is well settled. The Court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners calls for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial Court and while doing so even the submission made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial Court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore, cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins.
In the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as follows :
"The magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substituted its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved would ultimately end in conviction of the accused."
Perusal of the complaint and also the materials available on record, make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage. I do not find any justification to quash the order taking cognizance. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process.
The application is, therefore, dismissed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 02.02.2017 Uploading Date 27.03.2017 Transmission Date 27.03.2017