IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39974 of 2009 KAMATA MAHATA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 14.12.2010 Heard. This application is being filed for quashing the order dated 5.8.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Complaint case no. -167 (C) of 2009 by which process has been issued against the accused Kamta Mahato, Mukesh Kumar, Rambalak Mahata, Santosh Mahata and Dilip Kumar, after taking cognizance under Sections- 341, 323, 406, 379 and 504 I.P.C. The complainant alleged in the complaint petition that the marriage of his daughter was fixed with Dilip Kumar, son of Kamta Mahato. All the accused persons demanded Rs.3,00,000/- but finally it was settled of Rs.1,50,000/- is to be paid and hence the marriage was settled for Rs. 1,50,000/- and then Rs. 1,48,500/- was paid in three instalments at the instance of the accused persons in their Khata No. 10908128902 of State Bank of India, Hazaribag by the complainant. It was further alleged that at the time of Faldan the complainant gave a golden chain of two Bhar, clothes and silver vovel all worth of Rs. 35,000/-and the date of the marriage was fixed on 7.5.2009. After fixing the date of marriage, the 2 complainant makes payment for contract for arranging necessities in marriage like tent, generators etc. and the marriage Card was also distributed to all his relatives. It is further alleged that the complainant was called on by the accused Kamta Mahto and when the complainant and accused went to Kamta Mahto further demand of Rs. 2 lakhs diary was demanded and when the complainant shows his inability he was abused and thrown out and said that they will get the marriage of Dilip Kumar somewhere else. It is further alleged when the complainant demanded to return the amount given to the accused persons, the accused persons assaulted and thrown him out. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant wanted to marry his daughter to the younger son of the petitioner no.1 and married Dilip Kumar with whom the negotiation was held and so the proposal was denied and it is the complainant, who has committed mischief with the petitioner as alleged that however, having regard to the contention since the allegation make out an offence and the payment of amount of Rs.1,48,000/- not denied, as has been deposited in the account and the question of allegation and counter allegation can only be established during the trial. Having regard to the facts that there is allegation 3 on payment of Rs.1,48,000/- in account is not denied and further there is allegation of demand of Rs. 2 laks and at this stage cannot take the defence and hence under the facts and circumstances, since an offence is made out. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order taking cognizance and hence the petition is dismissed. Amit ( Gopal Prasad, J.)