The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings when they are manifestly attended with malice and instituted with an ulterior motive for private and personal grudge, as outlined in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 16.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the appellant.

3. The brief facts of the case are:

The appellants are accused in a criminal complaint filed by the second respondent. The first appellant is father-in-law of second respondent. The appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are brothers and appellant Nos. 6 to 9 are sons of the first appellant. The eldest son of the appellant was one i.e. Amiya Kumar Majee. The first appellant disowned his eldest son from all his properties severing all his relations with him by newspaper publication, made by the first appellant on 31.05.1999 which was published in the daily newspaper Awaz. The second respondent married to Amiya Kumar Majee, the eldest son of the first appellant on 5.6.2000 in a temple near her parental house. The complaint was lodged on 5.6.2007 which was filed by the second respondent against all the appellants in which her husband was also impleaded as sixth respondent. The complainant got herself examined in the complaint as well three witnesses. The Judicial Magistrate finding a prima facie case directed on 31.05.2008 to file requisite summons. The second respondent compromised the matter with sixth respondent, her husband Amiya Kumar Majee. The appellants who are accused nos. 1 to 5 and accused nos. 7 to 10 prayed for discharge. It was pleaded by the appellants that the second respondent and her husband were residing separately away from the house of accused persons and first appellant has already disowned Amiya Kumar Majee due to his bad conduct by paper publication dated 31.05.1999. The appellants have no concern with the marital life of the second respondent and her husband and no case has been made out against the appellants to proceed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants be discharged. The application filed by the appellants was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 19.07.2011. The Criminal Revision was filed by the appellant against the aforesaid order, which Revision was dismissed on 11.02.2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellants before the High Court praying for quashing the entire criminal proceedings and setting aside orders passed. The High Court by its Judgment dated 16.09.2013, dismissed the said application against which this appeal has been filed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that present is a case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction by quashing the entire criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings against the appellant were nothing but proceedings to put pressure on the appellants and harass them. It is submitted that husband of the second respondent was already disowned by the first appellant even before the alleged marriage of second respondent with the eldest son of the appellant and appellants have no concern with the second respondent and her husband. The Court below have mechanically entertained the complaint filed by the second respondent and in spite of, the appellants having placed relevant facts before the Magistral and Revisional Court, the discharge Petition was dismissed. It is submitted that the High Court has committed error in rejecting the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The copy of the complaint has been filed as Annexure P-2. All the appellants were made accused including Amiya Kumar Majee, the eldest son of the first respondent as sixth respondent to the complaint. Para 1 of the complaint stated:-

"That on 05.06.2000, the complainant was got married with the accursed no. 1 under Hindu customs at Chandrachud Temple situated near the parental house of the complainant at Sendel, P.S. Barabani, District – Vardhvan."

6. The allegations of the second respondent in the complaint i