IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27177 of 2009 1. KUAR SAHNI, SON OF FAKIRA SAHNI 2. FAKIRA SAHNI, SON OF KANCHAN SAHNI 3. JAGIA DEVI, WIFE OF FAKIRA SAHNI 4. RAM AVATAR SAHNI, SON OF FAKIRA SAHNI ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MADHPUR, P.O. MADHPUR, P.S. KAMTAUL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RENU DEVI, DAUGHTER OF MAHAVIR SAHNI, WIFE OF KUAR SAHNI (NOW DIVORCED WIFE), RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHERA, P.O. & P.S. BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES with Cr.Misc. No.25397 of 2009 1. KAUR SAHNI, SON OF FAKIRA SAHNI 2. FAKIRA SAHNI, SON OF KANCHAN SAHNI 3. JASHO DEVI, WIFE OF ARM AASHISH SAHNI 4. JAGIA DEVI, WIFE OF FAKIRA SAHNI ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MADHUPUR, P.S. KAMTAUL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 5. RAM CHANDAR SAHNI, SON OF BUDHAN SAHNI 6. GUDDU SAHNI, SON OF RAM CHANDAR SAHNI SERIAL NO. 5 AND 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KAHUA, P.S. BIROL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RENU DEVI, DAUGHTER OF SRI MAHABIR SAHNI, WIFE OF KUAR SAHNI (NOW DIVORCED), RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHERA, P.S. BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner :- Mr. Deo Govind Prasad, Advocate Mr. Chandra Mankeshwar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :- Mr. Manoj Kr. Jha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 3 9.12.2009 Heard the parties. The opposite party married the petitioner sometime in the year 1996. It appears that the marriage was surrounded by problems and a case was instituted in the year 1997 alleging that the petitioner was demanding dowry. This complaint case ended in an acquittal since it appears that the matter was compromised between the parties. The judgment of acquittal is annexure - 4. A complaint case numbered as Complaint Case No. 110 of 2005 was instituted by opposite party no. 2 Renu Devi in which she has admitted that she had earlier filed a case against the petitioner and his family members which ended in a compromise. It is alleged in the 2 second case that the lady was ill treated by her husband. On examination of S.A. it appears that the she was ill treated by her husband. She does not make out a case of demand of dowry on being examined on S.A. The petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 7.5.2009 in Complaint Case No. 110 of 2005. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that charges have been framed in the case and it is now ready for hearing. Yet another complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 which was Complaint Case No. 244 of 2007 and later registered as Bahera P.S. Case No. 268 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the third case i.e. Bahera P.S. Case No. 268 of 2007 the informant/complainant has not been able to explain as to how she was present in the house of the petitioners as it is admitted by her on S.A. in Complaint Case No. 110 of 2005 that she hardly remained in the house of her husband for a few days. This case is also pending for framing of charges. Both the cases are in triable by the Judicial Magistrate. In the result it would serve the interest of justice that the Court should hear both these cases i.e. Complaint Case No. 110 of 2005 and Bahera P.S. Case No. 268 of 2007 together in order to come to a correct conclusion with respect to the allegations. These two applications are thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)