IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13946 of 2008 SHIV DAYAL SINGH, S/O LATE RAM NAGINA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- BERIYARPUR, P.S. RAJAPAKAR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ............Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJDEO SINGH S/O BHANU PRATAP SINGH, 3. SINTU KUMAR SINGH S/O RAJDEO SINGH, 4. SUNAINA DEVI, W/O RAJDEO SINGH, 5. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH 6. SANOJ KUMAR SINGH Sons of Rajdeo Singh, 7. BABY DEVI 8. REKHA DEVI 9. NETU DEVI Daughters of Rajdeo Singh, 10. ARUN KUMAR SINGH, S/O RAMNAUMI SINGH, All residents of Village-Matiyara P.S. Mohaddin Nagar, District- Samastipur. ----------- /2/ 07.12.2010 The petitioner has challenged the revisional order dated 25.01.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Criminal Revision No. 177 of 2007, by which learned Sessions Judge refused to interfere with the order of cognizance, whereby the cognizance was taken under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was specific allegation in the complaint with regard to demand of dowry. Hence, the cognizance ought to have been taken under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry - 2 - Prohibition Act. It is very fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial has virtually concluded as the matter has been fixed for judgment. Keeping in view of the stage of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the application. This application is dismissed. Safik (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)