IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54805 of 2007 Prem Lata Devi @ Prem Lata Shahi, wife of Sri Yogendra Kumar, resident of North Jai Prakash Nagar, on the Canal, P.O. Ashiana Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District-Patna..........................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Smt. Pratibha C. Chaudhary, wife of Late Chandra Shekhar Prakash Chaudhary, C/O Sri B.K. Sinha, R/O B/28, Indirapuri, P.O. B.V. College, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District-Patna, Pin- 800014............................................................Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 26.03.2010. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 95 of 2007 whereby the cognizance has been taken under Section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that the discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, vide order dated 13.11.2008 hence, in that view of the matter, the present quashing application has become infructuous. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has also challenged the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, by which the discharge application has been 2 rejected and the said quashing application is pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the order dated 25.03.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5705 of 2008 wherein Smt. Usha Devi challenged the order of taking cognizance in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 95 of 2007 by which the complainant was added as party and notice was issued to newly added complainant and in the meantime the proceeding pending in the court below was stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order was passed because this Court was not informed that the discharge application has already been rejected and the trial proceeded after cognizance level. Hence, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances to the effect that discharge application has been dismissed by the trial court and the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court, this application is, accordingly, dismissed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)