IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1222 of 2008 1. SANJAY CHOUDHARY ,SON OF SRI HIRA CHOUDHARY 2. MANTU CHOUDHARY, SON OF SRI HIRA CHOUDHARY 3. PAPPU CHOUDHARY, SON OF SRI HIRA CHOUDHARY 4. HIRA CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY 5. SHAKUNIYA DEVI W/O SRI HIRA CHOUDHARY 6. REKHA DEVI W/O SRI MANTU CHOUDHARY 7. SHAVITA DEVI W/O SRI PAPPU CHOUDHARY ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA-MILAT COLONY CHAKARDAHA MORE, BARI KHAGAUL, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA ----- --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GUNJA DEVI WIFE OF SRI SANJAY CHOUDHARY D/O SRI SHIVJANAM CHOUDHARY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA-JAGIA TOLA, P.O. AND P.S.PHULWARI SHARIF DISTRICT-PATNA ----- OPP.PARTIES ----------- 3 24-11-2008 Heard Mr. Bijay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners as also Mr. Chandra Mauli Pd.Singh, the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Danapur P.S.Case No.591 of 2006, whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 498 A I.P.C. and 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition act against the petitioners. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that the complainant had earlier filed a similar case wherein they were acquitted by order dated 10.11.2005 on the basis of a compromise having been arrived at between the parties and notwithstanding the - 2 - same shortly thereafter she had given her written report before the concerned Police Station, on the basis whereof the instant case has been registered. The cause of action, the parties to the litigation, the nature and ambit of alleged cruelties that has been subjected to remain the same in both the cases. It is on these premises the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of the order taking cognizance. The learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 while countering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners surreptitiously and by misrepresenting had induced the complainant into entering into a compromise and notwithstanding the undertaking given by them in the court at the time of their acquittal on compromise the torture and cruelties on her had continued unabated and this inhuman suffering at the hands of the petitioners , who are her husband, her parents-in-law and close relatives of the husband prompted her to give the subsequent written report to the police . This was not to penalize or punish her husband and in-laws but to protect herself from the inhuman treatment meeted by the in-laws. The police after due investigation has found the case under Section 498 A I.P.C. and 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act to have been made out against the petitioners and cognizance has accordingly been taken thereunder. No apparent illegality or impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order could be shown to me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. - 3 - In the circumstances, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-