IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.18526 of 2008 SAURABH KUMAR S/o Late Sashi Bhusan Prasad, Residing at Mohalla- Veer Kuar Singh Colony Sough of Moti Braham, P.O. & P.S. Hazipur, District- Vaishali. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5/ 12.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State as well as informant. The petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexure-3, the charge-sheet bearing Charge-sheet no. 365 of 2007 dated 12.09.2007 filed against the petitioner and two other accused under Section 498 A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. case no. 417 of 2006 dated 14.11.2006, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner has further prayed for discharge from the bail bonds and sureties. The complaint petition is not annexed in this application. However, learned counsel for the complainant has annexed the same in the counter-affidavit, as Annexure-A. The opposite party no.-2 alleged in the complaint that the accused persons tortured her for non-fulfillment of dowry. It is further alleged that accused Sameer Kumar, who is the husband, contracted another marriage. It appears that after investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet on 12.09.2007 under Section 498 A, 494 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance too has been taken on 31.03.2008. A copy of charge-sheet is annexed as Annexure-4 to - 2 - this application. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the charge- sheet, as the same is in the teeth of compromise entered into between the parties. He further submits that a compromise petition dated 13.12.2006 duly signed by the parties, was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur with a request that the same may also be forwarded to the investigating officer. Learned counsel submits that in the compromise, it has been stated that parties would be taking divorce. He further submits that he filed a Matrimonial Suit bearing Matrimonial Case no. 199 of 2006, in which a decree of divorce was passed on 20.11.2007 and subsequently, the marriage was also dissolved. A copy of divorce decree is annexed as Annexure-2 to this application. Counsel for the Complainant submits that compromise petition was managed. Learned counsel further submits that the case in question relates to offence committed by the petitioner prior to decree of divorce dated 20.11.2007. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint was filed on 14.11.2006 whereas the decree of divorce is dated 20.11.2007, as such the alleged offences relates to period much prior to the filing of the Matrimonial suit, bearing Matrimonial suit no. 199 of 2006, filed on 13.12.2006 by petitioner’s brother. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no separate investigation can be conducted for the subsequent First Information Report lodged in spite of same office. He further submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan - 3 - Goswami & Ano. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors reported in 2008(1) PLJR 82 SC (sections) has observed in paragraph 23 that High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice and to prevent the accused of process of the court. There could not be any dispute in respect of propositions of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court. However, the facts of the instant case is different, as in the instant case, no second First Information Report has been instituted in respect of the same occurrence. I further find that neither the investigating officer nor the Magistrate has accepted the compromise. The allegations relate to period even prior to the date of filing of the Matrimonial suit. The case discloses a prima facie offence under Section 498 A, 494 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel submits that Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable, as he happens to be brother of husband of informant. The contention of the petitioner has substance. The petitioner can agitate this point at the time of framing of charge, as cognizance is taken of offence in a composite manner and not against an accused. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)