IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40463 of 2009 1. KUMARI DEVI, WIFE OF RAMKRIPAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ATRAWNA, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT BUXAR. 2. DHARMENDRA SINGH, SON OF RAMKRIPAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ATRAWNA, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT BUXAR. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAM JEE TIWARY 3. INDU DEVI BOTH ARE SON AND DAUGHTER OF BAIDAYA NATH TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARISADAN, P.S. SAHPUR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR (ARA). ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 19.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing of cognizance order dated 6.9.2004, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Itarhi P.S. Case No. 72 of 2004, under Sections 498A and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order taking cognizance against the husband and mother-in-law is unjustified in view of the fact that earlier a case under Section 304B was filed by the complainant and when the victim lady appeared and gave her statement, the Court realized that the case was wrongly instituted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The victim lady has given her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she has stated that being aggrieved by the behaviour of her husband and mother-in-law, she had left her house to go to her parents’ home. As it had got very late in the night, she stayed back with an old person. It is said that 2 when she came to know that a case had been instituted, she came forward and gave her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lady was recovered from the house of her parents and the parents ought to come forward and inform the Court or the police station that the victim lady had not been killed by her in-laws rather they chose to enquire until the recovery was made. It is also submitted that the lady seems to have left the house for whatever reasons, and was missing from her husband’s house and parents’ house for the past ten days and so the case under Section 498A has been built up as a defence in order to justify the absence from her in-laws house. All these aspects cannot be considered at the time of taking of cognizance but can be considered at the stage of discharge. I, therefore, do not think it proper to quash the order impugned passed in Itarhi P.S. Case No. 72 of 2004. This application is thus dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)