IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10641 of 2008 1. Shabbir, son of Late Hakimuddin. 2. Md. Tahir, son of Kalimuddin. 3. Bibi Asmat, wife of Shabbir. 4. Ruma Bibi, daughter of Late Hakimuddin. All resident of village-Rangamati, P.S. Amoar, District- Purnea. ………………………………………………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Bibi Raseda Khatoon, wife of Tanweer, resident of village-Rangamati, P.S. Amoar, District-Purnea. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Md. Bahauddin, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------------------------------- 4. 6.9.2011. Heard. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing the order dated 17.11.2006 passed in G.R. Case No.1885 of 2005, arising out of Supplementary Amoar P.S. Case No.53 of 2005, by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, whereby the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, took the cognizance of the offence against the accused-petitioners finding prima facie case against them under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 498-A and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3/4 of 2 the Dowry Prohibition Act on perusal of the supplementary chargesheet as submitted against the accused-petitioners and also ordered to issue non bailable warrant of arrest against the accused-petitioners fixing 20.12.2006 for appearance. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the co-accused, Sukaru, Md. Mustaquim, Maulvi Razzaque and Bibi Sabera, have already been acquitted by facing trial in Trial No.1551 of 2006 against whom the police had submitted the chargesheet continuing the investigation against the petitioners on the basis of compromise , as such, summoning and taking of cognizance against the accused petitioners on submission of the supplementary chargesheet is an abuse of the process of the court. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that on perusal of the supplementary chargesheet and case diary submitted against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 498-A and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate finding the prima facie case against the accused-petitioners took the cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections against the accused- 3 petitioners. On the basis of acquittal of other accused in separate trial the impugned order could not be said to be abuse of the process of court. I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 17.11.2006 to show the abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the issues, raised herein, at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)