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