IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29161 of 1999 1. NANDLAL PRASAD, SON OF SRI BASUDEO PRASAD 2. BASUDEO PRASAD, SON OF LATE SHEO PD. GUPTA 3. RUKMINI DEVI W/O BASUDEO PRASAD 4. DAYANAND PRASAD, SON OF BASUDEO PRASAD ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- KETLI ROAD, RAILPAR, P.S. ASANSOL MATH,DISTT.BARDHAWAN .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. ASHA DEVI, WIFE OF NANDLAL PRASAD, D/O ARUN KUMAR ARUN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BELLARI, P.S. SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA…… OPP.PARTIES ----------- FOR THE PETITIONERS:- MR.DEVENDRA KR. SINHA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- PARMANAND PD. A.P.P. -------- 4 27-4-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. Nobody has appeared for the complainant, opposite party no.2. 3. The four petitioners are accused in complaint case no.626 (C )/ 1996 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Banka. They have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal case including the order of cognizance dated 10-1-1997 for offence under sections 498-A and 323 of the I.P.C. 4. It has been submitted that on a careful reading of the complaint petition it would appear that the cruelty and torture etc. were allegedly committed by the 2 husband and his relations only at Asansol in the district of Bardman, West Bengal and therefore the complaint petition should not have been entertained by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banka. It has further been submitted that complaint petition contains false allegations only to meet the matrimonial case lodged by the husband of the complainant seeking divorce from the complainant. 5. On behalf of State it has been submitted that a careful reading of the complaint petition shows that cruelty did not stop with throwing out the complainant from the husband’s house. As per allegations some of the accused persons including the husband of the complainant came to her parental house at Banka and demanded money. When the father of the complainant requested them to take her back, the husband of the complainant refused to do so unless the demand of dowry was met. Thus, it has been submitted that complainant was subjected to cruelty and torture not only at Asansol but also at Banka and hence it cannot be held that the proceeding pending before the learned 3 Magistrate is at a wrong place. It was further submitted that order of cognizance is based upon correct appreciation of facts and such finding or order of learned Magistrate cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the proceeding is at a wrong place unless such error has occasioned a failure of justice. In support of this submission reliance was placed upon provisions of section 462 of the Cr.P.C. 6. On a careful reading of the complaint petition and on going through the provisions of section 462 Cr.P.C. there appears merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the State It is not one of the rarest of the rare cases where this court should interfere in the matter in the interest of justice. Hence, this court finds no merit in the quashing application preferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This application is accordingly dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)