Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1955 OF 2009
Nayan Prasad & Ors. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Bihar & Anr. ... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants(accused)
against the final judgment and order dated
23.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 39874 of 2004
whereby the High Court dismissed the application
filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.07.20
17:01:12 IST
Reason:
referred to as “the Code”) for quashing the order
1
dated 07.12.2004 passed by the Judicial
st
Magistrate, 1 Class, Motihari in Complaint Case
No.1864(C) of 2001 corresponding to Trial No.987 of
2004 whereby he refused to discharge the
appellants and posted the case for framing of
charge.
2. It may not be necessary to set out the facts in
detail except to the extent necessary for the disposal
of the appeal.
3. Respondent No. 2wife of one Rameshwar
Prasad (since dead) filed a criminal complaint
(AnnexureP1) in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Motihari (Bihar) against the appellants
herein for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 406, 379 and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the
IPC”). It was then transferred to the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class Motihari, who took
cognizance of the offences and issued summons to
2
the appellants herein, who are inlaws of
respondent No. 2(Complainant).
4. The appellants, on being served, filed a petition
under Section 245 of the Code and prayed for their
discharge. This petition was rejected by the
Magistrate by order dated 07.12.2004. The
appellants felt aggrieved and filed an application
under Section 482 of the Code before the High
Court at Patna and sought quashing of the main
complaint itself on several grounds including the
ground that the Court concerned has no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the
appropriate Court to decide the complaint is the
Court at Gopalganj District.
5. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed
the application filed by the appellants herein, which
has given rise to file this appeal by way of special
leave before this Court.
3
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in the appeal.
7. In our opinion, both the Courts below were
justified in dismissing the appellants’ petition filed
under Section 245 of the Code and the application
filed under Section 482 of the Code. We also do not
find any good ground to interfere in the impugned
order. It is really unfortunate that the complaint
filed in the year 2001 by respondent No. 2 (wife) is
not yet decided on merits and has remained
pending for such a long time on a technical plea.
8. The remedy of the appellants is to contest the
complaint filed by respondent No. 2 on merits. It is
then for the Magistrate to decide the complaint on
merits after recording the evidence of the parties in
accordance with law.
4
9. We, however, refrain from making any
observation on merits because we have directed the
Magistrate to decide the complaint on merits.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
11. Let the complaint be decided by the concerned
Magistrate within six months from the date of this
order.
12. A copy of the order be sent forthwith to the
concerned Magistrate by the Registry for
compliance.
…..………………………………J.
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
.………………………………..J
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi,
July 20, 2018
5