Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2023 of 2011 (7) dt.27-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2023 of 2011 ====================================================== Bahadur Choudhary, son of Late Laloo Choudhary, resident of Village- Kendra Pokhar, P.S. Habibpur, Distt. Maldah ( West Bengal) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Punam Choudhary, W/O Bahadur Choudhary, D/O Dulal Pd. Chaudhary, son of late Hari Pd. Chaudhary, resident of Village- Naya Tola, P.S. Barari, Industries, Distt. Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. A. K. Mukund, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Anjana Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Nagendra Kumar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 7 27-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.2.2005 passed in Complaint Case No.1968 of 2004 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under [STATUTE] and sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. From the record it appears that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 on 14.3.2000 and at the time of marriage the parents had Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2023 of 2011 (7) dt.27-08-2012 given ornaments to opposite party no.2. When she went to Sasural her in-laws and other persons started torturing her for not bringing the adequate dowry and also obtained signature on the blank sheet of paper. Thereafter the accused persons created awful situation, instigated opposite party no.2 to commit suicide and also started administering low intensity poison to her. It also appears that the petitioner along with opposite party no.2 came to Bhagalpur where petitioner had again reiterated the demand of dowry and ultimately the complaint case has been filed and the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate who vide order dated 23.2.2005 took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under section 498A of the Indian penal Code and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It also appears from the record that the petitioner and others had approached this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 28284 of 2005 where the jurisdiction of Bhagalpur court was challenged and this Court vide order dated 1.6.2007 rejected the application. At that time also the petitioner along with others had challenged the order of cognizance on different grounds. This time the petitioner is challenging Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2023 of 2011 (7) dt.27-08-2012 the order of cognizance on the ground that court has not recorded its finding about the satisfaction of prima facie case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of taking cognizance it was bounden duty of the Magistrate to record his subjective satisfaction about the prima facie case. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to keep his wife with full honour, dignity and security and he has been left with no course but to challenge the order of cognizance. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.2,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the dispute arising in between them. In contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that once the order of cognizance was challenged in the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous and that attained its finality then there can be no occasion for challenging the same order by filing different application taking different grounds. At that time this Court while deciding the case though had tested the validity of order on different grounds but this ground was also available to the petitioner which was not raised, now he can not be allowed to challenge the order of cognizance as it has reached Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2023 of 2011 (7) dt.27-08-2012 finality. So he can not be allowed to challenge the same order on different grounds. Another point raised by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is that so far satisfaction is concerned though magic word “prima facie” case is not there but more than prima facie word has been recorded with words, there are sufficient materials available on record. It has further been submitted that if in the complaint petition and other materials are available on record it can not be said that the court has wrongly taken cognizance. It has been further submitted that opposite party no.2 is not ready for settling the dispute in Rs.2,00,000/- but she can think over it if a reasonable amount is offered. At present this Court does not find any error in the impugned order on the following grounds (i) As the court below has recorded, there are sufficient materials available on record and complaint petition does not show that this recording is any way perverse or non-existence. (ii) The petitioner has moved this Court earlier and at that time also this Court affirmed the order of cognizance but that too on a different ground and the petitioner can not be allowed to challenge the same order in repetition by taking one or other ground. He ought to have taken all grounds at that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2023 of 2011 (7) dt.27-08-2012 time in the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous that was filed before this Court earlier. (iii) So far agreement between the parties is concerned that can be arrived at any stage even at the stage of trial or before the pronouncement of judgment and this Court hopes that as it is a matrimonial dispute, they should try to sort out the differences as it will be beneficial for both the parties. With the aforesaid observation this application is dismissed. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.