The court's decision reaffirms the principle that the High Court may exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings only in cases of malicious prosecution, based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Binay Kumar Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2014, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1606 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The complaint was filed by the O.P. No. 2 stating inter alia that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 Shewata Kumari was solemnized with O.P. No. 2 on 23.06.2012 before the Marriage Registrar, Ranchi. The petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are father, mother, brother and maternal uncle of the petitioner No. 1 respectively. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 had presented another girl before the O.P. No. 2 for the purpose of marriage before the marriage, but during the marriage ceremony the petitioner no. 1 was produced. The opposite party no. 2 and his family members objected, but somehow they accepted the petitioner no. 1 in marriage and the opposite party no. 2 accepted the petitioner no. 1 as his wife.

It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner no. 1 after marriage insisted upon the opposite party no. 2 to take share from the landed property belonging to his family, but the opposite party no. 2 refused to obey her proposal. The petitioners extended threat also that the opposite party no. 2 and his family members will be implicated in a false case. The petitioner no. 1 lodged a false criminal case after hatching a conspiracy, against the opposite party no. 2 and his family members, bearing Doranda P.S. Case No. 133 of 2012, under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is now pending before the learned Sub-Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that after marriage, on 26.06.2012, the opposite party no. 2 went to join his duty at Barh in the State of Bihar, where he was working as Officer H.R. in NTPC (Barh). The petitioner no. 1 continued the process of abusing the opposite party no. 2 and his family members and also extended threat that she will pour kerosene over her body and she will implicate the whole family in criminal case for demand of dowry.

It is further alleged that on 29.07.2012, the opposite party no. 2 came to Ranchi, but the petitioner no. 1 insisted on her demand to live separately and to demand share from the property belonging to his family. It is further alleged that on 30.07.2012 at 8.00 A.M. the petitioners no. 3 and 5 came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and took away the petitioner no. 1 with all her belongings and stridhan. It is further alleged that the petitioners extended threat and demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- from the opposite party no. 2 and his family members and also insisted on the opposite party no. 2 to take VRS from his service. It is further alleged that on 27.08.2012 at 7.30 A.M. the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 alongwith 5 to 6 unknown persons came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and abused him filthily and the petitioner no. 4 instigated on telephone to assault, thereafter the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and some other unknown persons assaulted the opposite party no. 2 with fists and kicks. The petitioner no. 2 gave a blow by rod on the head of the opposite party no. 2, the father of the opposite party no. 2 pulled him and saved him as the blow was with intention to kill the opposite party no. 2. It is further alleged that on the dictate of petitioner no. 1, the petitioners no. 2 and 5 assaulted the opposite party no. 2 and his father and brother and petitioners no. 1 and 3 held the mother o