IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2998 of 2009 1. Md. Tahir Hussain @ Md. Tahir Mian, son of Jahur Mian. 2. Md. Nausad Alam @ Md. Nausad Mian, son of Md. Tahir Mian @ Tahir Hussain. 3. Saida Khatoon, wife of Md. Tahir Mian @ Md. Md. Tahir Hussain, all resident of Village- Barki Gulni, P.S.Dhamaul, District- Nawadah. …………………………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Rausan Khatoon, wife of Md. Nausad Mian @ Nausad Alam of Village- Barki Gulni, P.S. Dhamaul, District- Nawadah, at present D/o Md. Ajim Mian of Village- Itpakwa, P.S. Kawakole, District- Nawadah. ……..Opposite Parties. For the petitioners :- Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate. Mr. Hirdey Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the State :-Mr. Gauri Shanker Gupta, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 02.12. 2010. Heard. The criminal miscellaneous petition is for quashing the order dated 17. 09. 2007 passed by Sri Uma Kant Yadav, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawadah, in Complaint Case No. 577 of 2007, for which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in the complaint petition is that marriage of the complainant was solemnised about ten years back. Thereafter, accused persons subjected to cruelty and whenever she reported to her parents they used to tell her to bear the cruelty in anticipation that the matter may be settled. However, 2 in the meantime, she was blessed with a daughter and thereafter, the accused persons subjected to cruelty and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is further alleged that they were tried to kill her by sprinkle kerosene oil. Thereafter, they snatched her jewelry and clothes and thrown her from matrimonial house. However, the complainant was examined on S.A. and after examined the witnesses, cognizance was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged said order of taking cognizance. Notice was issued to the complainant. However, even after notice, complainant has not appeared in the court then the court has no option than to decide on merit. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for notice again be issued to complainant. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, notice has been served personally by process server, but the complainant has not chosen to appear.. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that there is a case of false implication of the petitioners as the allegation has been made after seven years. It is further pointed out that there is some discrepancies and some contradictions in the order that one place she has stated that marriage was solemnised after ten years and in another place she has stated that 3 marriage was solemnised after seven years. However, having regard to the fact that there is allegation of subjecting cruelty and even she used to report the subjecting cruelty to her parents and demand. Further allegation of snatching of her belonging and thrown out of matrimonial home, hence make out a case prima facie as per statement of complainant on S.A. and witness adduced on her statement. The mere contradiction of statement here and there is no ground to reject the F.I.R. at the out set. Hence I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and hence the petition is hereby dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)