Gayatri Devi, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[markandey katju ; gyan sudha misra, jj.] - code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) 1908 - section 151 - saving of inherent powers of court -- this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned single judge of the patna high court in civil revision no. 945 of 2002. while the aforesaid partition suit was pending, the defendants smt. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas executed a general power of attorney on 31.7.1992 in favour of umesh chandra and dr. sanjeev kumar mishra and the same was registered. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent. the high court has observed that defendants nos. 2 and 2a viz., pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas should have consulted the power of attorney dr. sanjeev kumar mishra before signing the compromise petition. the principal is not bound to consult his attorney before signing a compromise petition. the impugned judgment and order of the high court is set aside and the order dated 7.6.2002 of the learned subordinate judge-v, bhagalpur is restored.1. petitioner nos.1 and 2 were sister- in-law of opposite party no.2. petitioner nos.3 and 4 were mother-in-law and father-in- law respectively of opposite party no.2.2. all the four petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated 12.1.2000 passed by chief judicial magistrate, bettiah in complaint case no.1736(c) of 1999. by the said order, learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under section 498a of the indian penal code and sections 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition act.3. at the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, shri m.n. parbat, submits that in view of subsequent development i.e. judgment and decree in the divorce case filed by the husband of opposite party no.2, order of cognizance in respect of husband of opposite party no.2 and his two brothers, was set aside by a bench of this court vide order dated 3.9.2010 passed in cr.misc. no.25340 of 2001. earlier, case record of cr.misc.no.25340 of 2001 was called for, which has been kept along with record of the present case.4. i have perused the order dated 3.9.2010 passed in cr. misc. no.25340 of 2001, whereby order of cognizance in respect of husband of opposite party no.2 and two brothers of husband of opposite partyno.2 was set aside.5. in view of the order dated 3.9.2010 passed in cr. misc. no.25340 of 2001, there is no reason to refuse the prayer of the petitioners in the present case for quashing the order of cognizance.6. accordingly, the order dated 12.1.2000 passed in complaint case no.1736(c) of 1999 by the learned chief judicial magistrate, bettiah, so far as four petitioners are concerned, is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.

Judgment:
1. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 were sister- in-law of opposite party no.2. Petitioner nos.3 and 4 were mother-in-law and father-in- law respectively of opposite party no.2.

2. All the four petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated 12.1.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Complaint Case No.1736(C) of 1999. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri M.N. Parbat, submits that in view of subsequent development i.e. judgment and decree in the divorce case filed by the husband of opposite party no.2, order of cognizance in respect of husband of opposite party no.2 and his two brothers, was set aside by a bench of this Court vide order dated 3.9.2010 passed in Cr.Misc. No.25340 of 2001. Earlier, case record of Cr.Misc.No.25340 of 2001 was called for, which has been kept along with record of the present case.

4. I have perused the order dated 3.9.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No.25340 of 2001, whereby order of cognizance in respect of husband of opposite party no.2 and two brothers of husband of opposite partyno.2 was set aside.

5. In view of the order dated 3.9.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No.25340 of 2001, there is no reason to refuse the prayer of the petitioners in the present case for quashing the order of cognizance.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 12.1.2000 passed in Complaint Case No.1736(C) of 1999 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, so far as four petitioners are concerned, is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.