IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47087 of 2007 RAJESH KUMAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DAULI KUMARI ----------- 3/ 30/01/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the O.P. No.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.9.2007 of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.1684C/05 rejecting his application for discharge preferred under Section-245 of Cr.P.C. The O.P. No.2 filed a complaint case against the petitioner in which cognizance came to be taken under Sections-406, 497, 498A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per allegations the house at Delhi for purchase of which he allegedly demanded money would have ultimately endeared to the benefit of O.P. No.2 also. Reliance was also placed on a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in 2004(8) S.C.C. 100 (ABRAHAM AND OTHERS Versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER) he urged that the courts at Patna did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and which could only be 2 instituted at Delhi. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submitted that from the reading of the complaint itself it was apparent that events could not been seen in isolation. The harassment occurred at Patna, continued at Delhi. After the opposite party was forced to return to Patna and visited her matrimonial home the demand for dowry was again raised at Patna. In the case of Abraham (supra) relied on by the petitioners, the facts were fundamentally different. The complaint there was held to furnish no cause of action at Chennai since no part of the cause of action had arisen there. All the allegations in the complaint, per se, took place, according to the complainant, at Nagercoil and whereafter the complainant came to Chennai and lodged the case. This Court has already noticed above that in the present case when the complainant came back to Patna, visited her matrimonial home, the demand for dowry resurfaced at Patna. The judgement relief upon is, therefore, of no avail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 very fairly concedes that on the very face of the allegations Section-497 of I.P.C. has no application. The prosecution is quashed only to that extent. 3 The application is allowed only to the extent indicated under Section-497 I.P.C., but dismissed on other aspects. Notwithstanding the refusal of this Court to interfere in the matter, the Magistrate before whom the trial shall proceed, shall be obliged to adequately keep in mind the aspect of re-conciliation during the course of trial. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)