IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28091 of 2009 Bharat Ram @ Bharat Kr. Shashtri, S/O-Iswar Dayal Ram, resident of village & P.O.-Dhabahan, P.S.-Ara Mufassil, District-Bhojpur ………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Dharmashila Devi, W/O-Bharat Ram, resident of village & P.O.-Dhabahan, P.S.-Ara Mufassil, District- Bhojpur at present resident of village & P.O.- Dhamar, P.S.-Ara Mufassil, District- Bhojpur, Ara. ………….Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar (Advocate) For the State :- Md. Arif (A.P.P.) 02 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. This petition has been preferred against order dated 24.09.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in Complaint Case No. 127 C of 2007 corresponding to Trial No. 1931 of 2009 by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and others took cognizance for the offences. It would appear from Annexure-1 to this petition that originally, complainant, namely, Dharmashila Devi filed Complaint Case No. 226 C of 2004 against the petitioner and others and the aforesaid complaint petition was converted into Ara (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2004. The police investigated the above stated case and after due investigation police submitted final form in the year 2006 but in the meantime, informant (complainant) filed a protest petition against the investigation of the police. 2 It would further appear from the record as well as submissions of the parties that that aforesaid protest petition was treated as complaint petition and the said protest petition was registered as Complaint Case No. 127 C of 2007. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate conducted an enquiry and having found prima facie case for the offences under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and other accused passed the impugned order dated 24.09.2008. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the final form was submitted in the year 2006 but the protest petition was filed in the year 2007 i.e. after one year of filing of the aforesaid final form. In my view, there is no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and furthermore, the impugned order does not require any interference. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this petition is, hereby, dismissed on admission stage itself. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court for needful. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)