Section 245 of the Code and prayed for their discharge. = The remedy of the appellants is to contest the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 on merits. = 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.

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