CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2158 OF 2003 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.JAI BIR KUMAR RAM son of fulena Ram 2.Fulena Ram son of late Sri Jit Lal Ram 3.Pania Devi wife of Fulena Ram 4.Ful Kumari Devi wife of Raj Pal Ram All residents of village-Baijapur Kesho, P.S.-Sonepur District-Saran …….. …….Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Rekha Devi daughter of Duryodhan Ram and wife of Jai Bir Kumar Ram, resident of village-Dewaria P.S.-Taraiya, Dist.-Saran …… …….Opp.Parties. ------- For the petitioners: Mr. Birju Prasad For the State: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR -------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 31.5.2002/ 7.6.2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra, Saran, in Taraiya P.S. case no. 84 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 498- A, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Short facts of the case is that opposite party no.2, who was wife of petitioner no.1, filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra (Saran), which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 1331 of 2000. However, the said complaint was referred to the police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure for its registration and investigation. Thereafter, First Information Report vide Taraiya P.S. case No. 84 of 2000 was registered for the offences under sections 498-A, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After registering the First Information Report, the police started to investigate the case. After collecting sufficient materials, the police submitted chargesheet in the case. After filing of the police report/chargesheet, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance the petitioners approached this court by filing the present petition which was admitted on 27.2.2004. 3. Mr. Birju Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners while challenging the order of cognizance has argued that the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside on the ground that second complaint for the same cause is not maintainable. It was submitted that father of opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.647 of 2001 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra (Saran) for the same occurrence. It was submitted that in the present case i.e. Tarariya P.S. Case No. 84 of 2000 same allegation was made which was made in Complaint Case No.647 of 2001. It was argued that in the Complaint Case No.647 of 2001 an enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made and after conducting an enquiry the learned Magistrate, 1st class, Saran (Chapra) by a detailed order had rejected the complaint case under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that since a complaint on the 3 same and similar allegation was rejected after thorough enquiry, the learned Magistrate was not required to take notice of the second complaint. It was submitted that second complaint petition is not permissible in the eye of law. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a number of decisions. He has referred to AIR 1962 SC 876 (Pramatha Nath Talukdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar) AIR 1977 SC 2432 (Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Kali Singh) and AIR 2003 Cr.L.J. 385 ( Jhumpa Panigrahi Vs. Tannu Gouda). On the basis of the aforesaid judgments it was submitted that time without number the Supreme Court has held that on same and similar allegation second complaint petition is not maintainable. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even during enquiry in Complaint case no.647 of 2001, the opposite party no.2 had not disclosed the fact that she had earlier filed a complaint. It was submitted that opposite party no.2 had suppressed the fact regarding filing of the earlier complaint. On these grounds, it has been prayed that the order of cognizance may be set aside. 4. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted by him that it was not a second complaint. He, while referring to Annexrue-1 i.e. First Information Report, which contained the Complaint Petition, submits that First Information Report i.e. Taraiya P.S. case no. 84 of 2000 was registered on the basis of Complaint Case No.1331 of 2000 which was filed on 25.7.2000, The first information report was registered as per the order of the learned Magistrate and even First 4 Information Report was lodged prior to the filing of the Complaint Case no. 647 of 2001. It was submitted that second complaint was filed by father of opposite party no2 and most of the allegations are not similar to the allegation made in Taraiya P.S. case no. 84 of 2000. It was submitted that after registering the First Information Report the police thoroughly investigated the case and thereafter chargesheet was submitted in this case. Since the present First Information Report was lodged on the basis of the complaint which was filed much earlier to the filing of Complaint Case No.647 of 2001, the present case cannot be considered as a second complaint. Moreover, on the basis of the complaint, First Information Report was lodged and the case was thoroughly investigated by the statutory investigating agency regarding order passed by the learned Magistrate in second Complaint case no. 647 of 2001. It was submitted by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that even in the second complaint the petitioners were not put on trial and the second complaint was rejected after conducting enquiry under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel has also submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case No.647 of 2001 was not in accordance with law. However, he submitted that there is no need to address the court on the merit of order passed in Complaint Case No. 647 of 2001. Since in the present case First Information report was lodged on the basis of first complaint, it was submitted that the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, has got no connection in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, it has been 5 prayed to reject the present petition. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing has produced the certified copy of chargesheet submitted in Taraiya P.S. case no. 84 of 2001. Keep it on the record. From the chargesheet it is evident that during investigation allegation against all the accused persons for the offences under sections 498-A, 323, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was found to be true and, as such, the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offences has committed no error. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance has committed no error. It is also not in dispute that First Information Report in the present case was instituted on the basis of the complaint which was filed much prior to the filing of the complaint case no.647 of 2001. Moreover, complaint case no. 647 of 2001 was not filed by opposite party no.2 but the same was filed by her father. So far as allegation of the petitioner that opposite party no.2 had suppressed the fact while deposing in Complaint Case No.647 of 2001 is concerned, the court is of the opinion that for the purpose of deciding the present complaint, there is no requirement to notice this fact. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, as noted above, the Court is satisfied that it cannot be termed as second complaint. The learned Magistrate has committed no error. I find no merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of 6 Patna High Court The 1st September,2010 Md.S/NAFR stay dated 25.4.2003 stands automatically vacated. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the matter remained pending before this court for a long period, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the trial may come to its logical end at the earliest. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)