IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32062 of 2004 ARUN KUMAR SHARMA @ ARUN KUMAR, SON OF LAKSHMI SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HASAULI MALPUR TOLA, P.S. UJJIARPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT 27, SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE ROAD, POLICE BHAWANIPUR, KOLKATA-25. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHA 2. RENU DEVI WIFE OF ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN KUMAR SHARMA, VILLAGE MASAURI, TOLA MORPUR, POST HASAULI, P.S. UJJIARPUR, DISTT.SAMASTIPUR. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Sudhir Singh, Raghawanand, Ranjeet Kumar, Rabindra Kumar Tiwary For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. 12 17.12.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of Opposite party no.2 despite valid service of notice. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 7.1.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalsing Sarai camp at Samastipur in Trial No.915 of 2002 whereby cognizance of offence under section 498A of the Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioner. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused persons tortured her for demand of dowry. Learned counsel submits that the instant complaint petition has been filed in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalsing Sarai camp, at Samastipur, on 4.9.2001 in retaliation to the Matrimonial Suit No.952 of 2001 filed by the petitioner in the court of District Judge, Alipore in the State of West Bengal earlier on 4.7.2001, in which notice was issued to the Opposite 2 party no.2 on 4.7.2001. He further submits that the father and other relatives of the complainant also resides at Kolkata and when they came to know about filing of the Matrimonial Suit, they threatened the petitioner with dire consequences, as a result of which the petitioner has filed a petition against them under section 107 Cr.P.C.. On the aforesaid petition under section 107 Cr.P.C. the learned Executive Magistrate, Alipore, called for a police report as would be evident from Annexure-5. In the enquiry report, the police stated that the Opposite parties are making pressure for withdrawing the aforesaid divorce case filed by the petitioner before the District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to wreak vengeance, the instant complaint case has been filed by the complainant on 4.9.2001. Apart from this, the prosecution side subsequently also filed another case, being Ujjiarpur P.S. Case No.50 of 2003 under sections 498A, 341, 232, 279, 467 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State submits that prima facie offence under section 498A of the Penal Code has been made out against the petitioner. It would appear from the documents annexed with this application that the petitioner has earlier filed Matrimonial Suit against the Opposite party no.2 and has subsequently also filed a petition for initiation of a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. against the father and other family members of Opposite 3 KHAN party no.2. It would further appear from Annexure-6 that the prosecution side has also filed another case under section 498A of the Penal Code. However, these documents form defence of the petitioner, which cannot be looked at this stage. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the materials on record, this court is of the view that if the petitioner raises all these points at the time of framing of charge, the same would be looked into by the court concerned and would pass appropriate order without being prejudice by the fact that the petitioner has moved this court against the order taking cognizance. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)