IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.53148 of 2008 Santosh Bhagat son of Hari Chandra Bhagat, resident of Village- Singheshwar (Gauripur) Police Station-Singheshwar, District- Madhepura. .........Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar. .........Opposite Party For the Petitioner :- Mr. Anamul Haque, Adv. For the State :- Mrs. Rina Sinha, A.P.P. ---------------------------------- 04 29.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P.P. for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the cognizance order dated 23.06.2008, passed in Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 02 of 2008 (G.R. No. 05 of 2008) by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence under sections 323, 498A and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and three other accused. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that after filing the Matrimonial Case No. 26 of 2007 by the petitioner against his wife Nitu Singh-informant, Nitu Singh has filed the present false case with concocted story only to harass the petitioner and his other family members. It appear from perusal of the order dated 23.06.2008, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in G.R. No. 05 of 2008 arising out of Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 02 of 2008 that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the charge-sheet 2 and the case diary arrived at conclusion that there is sufficient ground for taking the cognizance of the offence under section 323, 498-A and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against accused Harish Chandra Bhagat, Anita Devi, Kiran Devi and Mukesh Bhagat in column no. 11 of the charge-sheet and also against petitioner Santosh Bhagat whose name has been shown in column no. 12 of the charge-sheet. In the circumstances, I find no illegality amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Safik (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)