IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.20420 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -394 Year- 2010 Thana -M UNGER COM PLAINT CASE District-
1. Md. Tajuddin , S/o Md. Reyajuddin
2. Md.Reyajuddin S/o Late Md. Natho
3. Bajo W/o Md. Reyajuddin
4. Noor Alam @ Noor Uddin @ Mitthu S/o Md. Reyazuddin
All resident of Village Nayagaw P.O. Basdeopur P.S. Kotwali, District Munger.
…. …. Petitioner/s
1. The State of Bihar
2. Afsana Khatoon W/o Tajuddin D/o Md. Saheb resident of Village Nayagao n
P.O. Basdeopur P.S. Kotwali District Munger. At present resident of Village Hazrat
Ganj Bara, Gali No. 4, P.O. Munger, P.S. Kasim Bazar District Munger.
…. …. Opposite Party/s
For the Petitioner/s :
For the Opposite Party/s :
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. The present application is filed for quashing of
cognizance order dated 07.12.2010 and subsequent criminal
proceedings in Complaint Case No. 394(C) of 2010 pending in the
court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, who has
taken cognizance in the matter under Sections 323, 498A and 504 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
complainant is in the habit of lodging complaint repeatedly under
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.20420 of 2014 dt.21-11-2017
Section 498A of I.P.C. and earlier case was withdrawn on the basis of
compromise but again she has filed this case against the petitioners
though husband is always ready to keep her but she does not intend to
reside in matrimonial home.
4. Contrary to that, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2
negates the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that wife is dependant on the husband for her care and
maintenance, therefore, after lodging of the first complaint, she
compromised as her husband was ready to keep her with respect and
dignity but again, after withdrawal of the first case, started torturing
her in connection with demand of dowry and the allegations are
specific against all accused petitioners.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and on
perusal of record, the Court finds that allegations levelled in the
complaint are specific against all the petitioners and it is not the case
that ingredients of the offence are not disclosed in the complaint
against the accused persons. So there is no need for interference in the
cognizance order. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Arun Kumar, J)
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.11.2017