IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25931 of 2008 KRISHNA NAND JHA @ KRISHNA DEO JHA, SON OF LATE DEO NARAYAN JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – JAIRAMPUR, P.S. BIHPUR, DISTT. BHAGALPUR. ------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. HARI NANDAN JHA, SON OF NATHE LAL JHA 3. ARAJIV KUMAR @ RAJA, SON OF HARI NANDAN JHA 4. SANJIV KUMAR SUMAN, SON OF HARI NANDAN JHA 5. SANYUKTA DEVI, WIFE OF HARI NANDAN JHA ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MADWA, P.S. BIHPUR, DISTT. BHGALPUR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA – ISHAKCHAK, P.S. MOJAHIDPUR, DISTT. BHAGALPUR. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 13.05.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner who is the Complainant is aggrieved with the order dated 5.7.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1 of 2007/Cr. Revision No. 174 of 2003 passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Naugachia. The background of the case is that a Complaint was filed on 21.12.1996 for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance was taken on 22.12.1999 on the same. Thereafter, the accused persons filed an application for discharge which was disallowed by an order dated 17.1.2004. As against the order of non-discharge, the brother-in-law of the alleged victim approached this Court in 482 Cr. P.C. vide Cr. Misc. No. 22699 of 2004. Two arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioner; (i) that the order of cognizance was barred by 2 limitation and (ii) that the complaint was a piece of malicious prosecution in the background facts of the case that the accused persons had filed a complaint bearing No. 84 of 1994 upon which Bihpur P.S. Case No. 84 of 1995 had been instituted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was remanded by this Court by an order dated 12.12.2006 to the Revisional Court to consider these two aspects of this case. In the meanwhile, the rest of the accused persons filed a separate Cr. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. vide Cr. Misc. 18001 of 2006 which was dismissed on 10.4.2007 without the Court having been made aware of the earlier order of this Court in another application filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. When the matter came up before the Revisional Court on remand from this Court, it considered the two aspects which it was directed to do, and concluded that the cognizance was barred by limitation and also that the complaint was malicious and set aside the order of cognizance. Even though, the order of cognizance has been set aside by the Revisional Court, the petitioner chose to file a Misc. petition before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia stating therein that the cognizance has been set aside only with respect to the accused who had approached this Court In Cr. Misc. 22699 of 2004 and, therefore, the case should proceed. The application was 3 naturally rejected. I am unable to understand as to how the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia, can reopen the case after the Revisional Court has quashed the order of cognizance and in my view, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia committed no illegality in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is not correct in submitting that the Revisional Court has set aside the order of cognizance only with respect to the brother-in-law of the victim because from Annexure-3 i.e. the order filed herein passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22699 of 2004, I find that background facts of the case has been considered and, thereafter, the Revisional Court was directed to consider whether the complaint was malicious and whether cognizance was barred by limitation which it did and set aside the order of cognizance. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is dismissed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)