IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26788 of 2008 1. PRAKASH SINGH @ BAGHEL SINGH SON OF SURESH SINGH 2. SURESH SINGH SON OF LATE RAM SURAT SINGH 3. UMARAI DEVI WIFE SURESH SINGH 4. CHANDRA PRABHA DEVI WIFE OF PRAKASH SINGH @ BAGHEL SINGH. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMHARIA, P.S. DHINA DISTRICT CHANDAULI (U.P.). ... ... PETITIOINERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUDHA DEVI WIFE PRAKASH SINGH DAUGHTER OF BIRENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMHARIA, P.S. DHINA, DISTRICT CHANDOULI U.P. AT PRESENT RESIDES AT VILLAGE BHERIYA, P.S. DEHARI DISTRICT ROHTAS. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arbind Nath Pandey,Adv. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh,Sr.Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ----- 5. 21.6.2010. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 22.12.2005 passed by Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas in Complaint Case No.971 of 2003, Tr. No.709 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of process against accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier also, a complaint petition was filed which ended in compromise and subsequently, on the same allegation, second complaint petition was filed. 2 N.H./ Shri Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, submits that it is true that in earlier complaint, compromise was arrived, but thereafter, again the accused persons started torturing the complainant for extracting dowry and thereafter, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint petition. It was further argued that petitioner no.1, who is the husband of opposite party no.2, has also solemnized second marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though it was an allegation but learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to raise all the points, which has been raised in this case at appropriate stage. This application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as indicated above. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)