IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18099 of 2007 BABUL SHARMA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner: Md. Helal Ahmad, Adv. For the State: Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 Mr. Suresh Pd. Barnwal, Adv. ------------ 4. 09.04.2010 In this application the challenge is to the order dated 2.2.2006 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar passed in C.A. No. 1287 of 2005/Tr. No. 1287 of 2006 whereby cognizance of offence under Section 498A I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioners for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. The O.P. Surti Kumari filed complaint No. 1287 of 2005 alleging against the petitioners for offence under Sections 323 and 498A I.P.C. The complaint was filed on 17.6.2005 and the O.P. No. 2 alleged that she was married to petitioner No. 2 Mulchand Sharma on 22.11.2004 and after marriage she went to her matrimonial house and the petitioners kept her well for two months but thereafter, they started scolding her saying that she had not brought sufficient articles in dowry. They demanded Rs. 10, 000/- in this regard and due to non-fulfillment of the same, she was abused and assaulted in various ways. She further alleged that on 1.2.2005 her husband started beating her and told her that unless she brought Rs. 10, 000/- she will have to face torture and harassment. The other petitioners also assaulted her. She alleged that she was ousted from her Sasural house and thereafter, she was living at her Maika. It was also alleged that the matter was tried to be reconciled through a Panchayati but the petitioners did not listen to her request. After filing the complaint, witnesses were examined during enquiry. 2 On consideration of the complaint and the statement of witnesses, the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 2.2.2006 took cognizance of offence under Section 498 A I.P.C. only. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not make any submission on the merits of the case and he says that parties have compromised the case and submits that the impugned order be quashed on this ground. The ground of compromised is taken but any compromise petition has not been filed in the record of this case. The learned counsel submits that an adjournment should be granted for filing a copy of the compromise petition. On the perusal of the record, I find that the case was filed on 17.4.2007 and since then it has remain pending due to non-appearance of the petitioners. On 19.9.2008 when the case was called on for hearing it was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner filed restoration application which was allowed and the case has been restored. Thus the petitioner has not remained vigilant in prosecuting his case here. Nearly three years have elapsed but any compromise document has not been filed in record. I do not find it a fit case for grant of an adjournment only for this purpose. Therefore, the prayer for adjourning the matter for filing a compromise is refused. So far merit is concerned, I find nothing to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the application is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, It is observed that if any compromise is filed before the court below, it will be disposed of according to law. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-