Criminal proceedings quashed under inherent powers as malicious counterblast to matrimonial cruelty case, with alibi evidence, no injury proof, and absurd improbable allegations amounting to abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, the learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barh, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No. 647 (C) of 2021 whereby cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 341 and 379/34 of the I.P.C was taken.

3. The short facts of the case arising out of Complaint bearing complaint Case No. 647 (C) of 2021 relates to the petitioners having come to the house of the Opposite Party No. 2 and demanding Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakh) from him and even threatening of dire consequences in case of non-payment of the said amount. Further, allegations against the petitioner nos. 1 and 4 are that they have snatched bags of the Opposite Party No. 2 containing jewellery worth Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lakh) and also Rs. 40,000/-(Forty Thousand) cash along with some clothes and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with some important documents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case is out and out a malicious prosecution in as much as this case came to be filed as a counter blast to filing of case under Section 498 A of the IPC against the brother of the Opposite Party No. 2 who was the husband of the petitioner no. 1. It has been pointed out that while petitioner no. 1 is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the Opposite Party No. 2, petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the mother, father and brother of petitioner no. 1 respectively. It has also been submitted that all the petitioners are residents of Mumbai, Maharashtra and none of them were present at the alleged place of occurrence on 12.12.2021 and neither have they visited the said place any time in the month of December 2021. While petitioner no. 3 is senior citizen, petitioner no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner no. 3. With regard to petitioner no. 4, a copy of the train tickets and the booking receipt of the hotel at Rajasthan, has been brought on record by way of Annexure- 2 to 7 in order to show that he was travelling to Rajasthan from Bombay and during the period alleged, he was staying at Rajasthan and visiting places which are also substantiated by relevant documents. The marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the brother of the Opposite Party No. 2 had been solemnized on 11.12.2020 at Bombay and on account of torture and cruelty faced at the hands of her husband, petitioner no. 1 was compelled to register an FIR being Agripada P.S. Case No. 657 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021 for an offence under A of the and also a criminal complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 80/DV/21 under Sections 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgoan, Mumbai. It is only after the brother of the Opposite Party No. 2 namely, Nikhilesh Anand, received notices in the complaint filed by the petitioner no. 1 that the present complaint case was filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, who is the brother of the husband of the petitioner no. 1. It has also been additionally argued that with regard to insertion of Sections 323 and 341 of the that no injury report has been attached by the Opposite Party No. 2 in order to support his statement made in the complaint. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 in order to contend that the present case squarely falls within the ambit of malicious prosecution and as such the cognizance