IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32944 of 2010 TAYABA KHATOON & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2/ 29.9.2010 Heard Sri Md. Farooq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dashrath Mehta, learned APP for the State. The order dated 27.1.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda in Bihar P.S. Case No. 267 of 2009 is sought to be quashed, by which, while taking cognizance of offence under sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the learned magistrate was also proceeding to direct that the trial of above noted case and Complaint Case No. 966 C of 2009 shall proceed simultaneously as if they were one case. The learned C.J.M. has, in fact, directed the amalgamation of two cases. The Code of Criminal Procedure may not clearly spelling out that it could be having a provision of amalgamation of cases but, on consideration of provisions of section 210(2) of the Code, one may feel inclined to take a view as was taken by the C.J.M. Nalanda while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon the court that the in-laws may not have any direct hand or contributory hands towards any act because, the two being old persons, were keeping themselves aloof of the affairs of their sons. But, the court finds that for considering the summoning order and its propriety, the statements of facts and the allegations coming out 2 of them, which are contained in the FIR/complaint petition could be the only basis and, keeping that in view, it could be simply hazardous to jump to any conclusion as regards the submission. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)