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

referred to  as “the  Code”) for  quashing the  order

1

dated 07.12.2004 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate,  1st  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