PATNA, India, July 9 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 3:

Heard Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Chandra Mohann Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. This application has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.') as to quash the order dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 805/2014, whereby learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC against the petitioner.

3. The brief case of the prosecution is that the complainant (opposite party no. 2) got marriage with Triyogi Narayan Prasad on 28.05.1996 and after marriage she was blessed with one son and one daughter. She alleged that her husband is simple, illiterate, where the elder brother of her husband was the head of the family and look after the entire properties of the family, which is in crores. The complainant further stated that she was living separately with her husband and getting Rs. 3000/- per month from the income of the property, where petitioner no. 1 has grabbed the entire amount of the income of the family and also taken signature of her husband on the blank paper. She further alleged that petitioner no. 1 is the bhaisur and petitioner no. 2 is the gotni, where one Raj Kumar Prasad is the friend of her husband and bhaisur.

4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint of the complainant, Complaint Case No. 805/2014 was registered against the petitioners and other accused persons.

5. Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the bhaisur (elder brother-in-law) and petitioner no. 2 is the gotni (wife of petitioner no. 1) of the complainant. It is submitted that the complaint was made to the Officer Incharge, Samastipur and other senior police officials, but no action was taken being property dispute between husband of O.P. No. 2 and petitioner no. 1, who are full brother.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that after perusal of the complaint, solemn affirmation on oath and examination of enquiry witnesses, learned court below has taken cognizance under Section 498A of the IPC in very mechanical manner.

7. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner no. 1 and husband of the complainant are full brother and much earlier, the father of petitioner no. 1 had done partition of the landed properties between them as well as separated the business among both the sons. Both brother i.e. petitioner no. 1 and husband of the complainant were living with their family separately.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM4Mjc2IzIwMjQjMSNO-rl7irmDyEwM=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.