CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11255 OF 2003 ------- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ Anwarul Haque son of Babu Jan Khan resident of village Lauwan, P.S.-Barharia, district Siwan ……. ……… Petitioner versus 1.The State of Bihar 2. Sahna Khatun wife of Anwarul Haque resident of village Lauwan, P.S.-Barharia, district Siwan at present daughter of Nasiruddin Khan, resident of village Barari Harcase, P.S.-Uchka Gaon, district- Gopalganj …… …….Opp.Parties ------ For the petitioner: Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr.Adv. Mr.S.K.Giri For the State: Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey,A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR --------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 6.3.2003 passed by Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 81 of 2003/Trial No. 1398 of 2003. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 81 of 2003. In the complaint petition it was alleged that the petitioner and his other family members had committed offences under Sections 323, 406, 498,486 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint petition was filed on 13.1.2003. It was alleged that about six and half 2 years before the date of filing of the complaint petition, the complainant’s marriage was solemnized with the petitioner. At the time of marriage huge assets were given to the petitioners. The complainant had disclosed the amount of entire assets on the foot of the complaint petition i.e. Rs.2,15,000/-. It was alleged that after the marriage the petitioner and his family members started pressurizing the complainant to bring rupee one lakh more from her parents since father of the complainant was doing job in the Arab country. It was alleged that repeatedly the accused persons were torturing the complainant mentally and physically. It was also disclosed that the petitioner, who was husband of the complainant, was having illicit relationship with the wife of his brother (Bhabhi). On objection being raised by the complainant, the complainant was assaulted and finally she was ousted from the house of her in-laws. On the aforesaid allegation, the complaint was filed. After filing of the complaint petition the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure transferred the complaint to the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for enquiry and trial. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted. During enquiry three witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 6.3.2003 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 6.3.2003 the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 23.9.2004 while issuing notice to opposite party no.2 this court directed that in the meantime, further proceeding in complaint case No. 81 of 3 2003 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj shall remain stayed. On 27.3.2006, the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order passed on 23.9.2004 shall remain operative. The order of stay is still continuing. 4. While challenging the order of cognizance Mr.Sanjay Kumar Giri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even the learned Magistrate while passing the order of cognizance has completely failed to appreciate the allegation made in the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the entire order of cognizance passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. Learned counsel further submits that even before filing the present complaint petition, the petitioner had filed an informatory petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Siwan on 26.12.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to annexure-3 to the petition which, according to him, is a typed copy of Informatory Petition. It was submitted that in the informatory petition, the petitioner had alleged that after the marriage the complainant of the present case was not willing to live with the petitioner but the petitioner was willing to live with her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to annexure- 4 to the petition i.e. photo copy of certified copy of the of the complaint petition of Complaint Case no. 69 of 2003. It was submitted that the petitioner had filed Complaint Case no. 69 of 2003 against father, mother and brother of the present complainant on allegation of offences under Sections 498, 379 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Complaint Case No. 69 of 2003 4 it was alleged that the father, mother and brother of the complainant had stolen certain properties of the present petitioner. In the said case, it was submitted that the learned Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offences. Learned counsel has further submitted by referring to supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of the present petition certain developments had taken place. It was alleged that subsequently the complainant of the present case has divorced the petitioner. It was further submitted that the complainant of the present case has also got subsequently married with another person and as such opposite party no.2-complainant has not taken any interest in the present case and has not appeared. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit, which according to him, is the marriage card of the complainant. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that order of cognizance may be set aside. 5. I have heard Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 6. Despite service of notice in this case, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, I have also perused the materials available on record. After going through the materials available on record, the Court is satisfied with the order of cognizance which requires no interference. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an informatory petition has got no relevance so far as the order of cognizance is concerned. It is made clear that while hearing a petition 5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not required to examine such document which has not been proved through process of law. Annexure 3 is a typed copy of so called informatory petition. So far as annexure-4 i.e. Complaint Case No. 69 of 2003 is concerned, on perusal of the same it is evident that the petitioner had filed the complaint petition after filing of the complaint against him by opposite party no.2-complainant in the present case. This shows that the petitioner had tried to create a defence in his favour. Moreover, for the purpose of hearing a petition against the order of cognizance this Court is not required to record a detailed finding. The Code of Criminal Procedure is a self contained Code. There are number of remedies available to the person concerned. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly, the allegation leveled by the complainant, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercise of inherent power in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 8. In view rejection of this petition, interim order of stay granted on 23.9.2004 stands automatically vacated. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the matter remained pending before this Court for a long time, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without any delay. 10. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands rejected. Patna High Court, The 8th September, 2010 Md.S./NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)