IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53161 of 2007 JAMADAR SINGH @ JIMEDAR SINGH, S/o Sakhichand Singh, Resident of Muhalla Bekarbandh, Ekant Apartment A/4 P.S. Dhanbad, Distt. -Dhanbad. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Sushma Devi, D/o Ram Sarup Pd. W/o Jamadar Singh, R/o Village-Pakari, P.S.-Masaurhi, Distt.-Patna. ………..Opp. Parties. ----------- 04. 23.04.2010 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance passed by S.D.J.M. Masaurhi, Patna Dated 17.08.2007 in complaint case No. 292(C) of 2006 instituted for offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. By the order dated 11.02.2009 the Opposite Party No. 2 was noticed as to why the matter be not disposed of at the admission stage and the Opposite Party No. 2 has appeared. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner was married to the complainant on 28.06.2001 and since then she was residing with her in-laws in Dhanbad. However, she was tortured by her in-laws and thereafter the petitioner got remarried. She has also alleged that she had given an information to Dhanbad Police but no action had ensued upon the same. After she was ousted from her in-laws house she came to her maternal house. On 25.10.2006 the petitioner came to her house and assaulted her. 2 After inquiry, the Court took cognizance in the matter as mentioned above. The petitioner has filed the present application mainly on the ground that there is already a proceeding under Section 498A pending in the Court of Dhanbad and the Opposite Party No. 2 also concedes this fact. The further submission is that all acts appear to have been committed at Dhanbad and the allegation at the end of the complaint has been appended with sole purpose of creating jurisdiction of the Court at Patna. The Opposite Party No. 2 opposes the application but concedes that the trial in court at Dhanbad with regard to offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code is going on. This court is of the view that the proceedings for the same offence is a clear case of misuse of process of court. Moreover, the allegation at the end of the complaint also appears to be only for the purpose of creating jurisdiction. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 17.08.2007 in Complaint Case No. 292(C) of 2006 passed by S.D.J.M. Masaurhi, Patna is quashed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)