REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2035 OF  2008 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 282 of 2007)

Baikunth Singh  .....Appellant

Versus

State of Bihar and Ors. ......Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge in this appeal is  to the order passed by a learned Single

Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the order passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Jehanabad taking cognizance  of offence punishable

under Section  406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’)  and

issuing summons against the applicants-respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The High

Court  exercised  power  under  Section  482  of  the  Code  of  Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’). The High Court was of the view that

the case might have been filed by the complainant in order to pressurize the

petitioners before the High Court not to proceed with the case which was

lodged under Section 304-B ,201/34 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Act

against the complainant and others.  

3. Various points were urged in support of the appeal. Primarily it was

submitted that  the petition  was disposed of without  issuing notice  to the

complainant. It is submitted that the exercise of power under Section 482 of

the Code was not warranted on the facts of the case.  

4. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 supported the order of

the High Court.  Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported

the stand of the appellant.   

5. It is not in dispute that the present appellant was impleaded as a party

in  Criminal  Miscellaneous  No.9428  of  2006  which  was  filed   by

respondents 2 and 3. Strangely, without issuing any notice the petition was

disposed of. 6. The High Court has come to a conclusion which appears

2

to have been more on presumptions and surmises that the case might have

been filed to pressurize the applicants before the High Court. There was no

material in this regard and in any event the stage for deciding that question

had not arisen.   

7. It cannot be said to be a case where the complainant was not required

to be heard.  It is more so because the proceedings were initiated on the

basis  of  the  complaint  filed  by  the  appellant   which  was  registered  as

Complaint Case No.272 of 2002.  

8. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of

the case, we set aside the impugned order. We direct the parties to appear

before the High Court without any further notice on 21st January, 2009.  The

Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court  is  requested  to  allot  the  matter  to  an

appropriate Bench.  

9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.  

…………................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…………...............................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

3

New Delhi, December 15, 2008

4