IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15678 of 2008 Md.Gaffar @ Abdul Gaffar Jameeye, Son of Md. Asgar, Resident of Village – Giddha, Police Station – Singheshwar, District – Madhepura. ………. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Samrun Khatoon W/o Abdul Sattar, D/o Md. Yusuf, resident of village – Chauhatta, P.S. Kishanpur, District – Supaul. ……… Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : - Mr. Md. Naushaduzzaha, Advocate For the State : - Mr. Dasrath Mehat, APP ------- 09/ 13.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the complainant-O.P. No. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 21.04.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Supaul in Complaint Case No. 817(C) pf 2008 summoning the accused persons including the petitioner, on enquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 380 of the IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is brother-in-law (Bhaisur) of the complainant-O.P. No. 2 Samrun Khatoon and has been falsely implicated in this case only to put undue pressure and harass. In fact, the petitioner is a Government Teacher in High School at Agra (U.P.) and he is residing since 1994 there which would appear from Annexure-3 to this application and hence no question arise to the petitioner to torture the complainant. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned S.D.J.M. on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the 2 complainant and the statement of the witnesses examined in course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has arrived at a conclusion that a prima face case under Sections 498A, 323, 379. 380 of the IPC and 3/4 pf Dowry Prohibition Act are made out. It also appears from the complaint petition itself that there is specific allegation against the petitioner also. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his defence at appropriate stage. DKS/ (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)