CRIMINAL REVISION No.152 OF 2002 ---------- Against the order dated 19.10.2001 passed in Complaint Case no.1901( C) of 2001 passed by Sri Mahboob Hassan, Judicial Magistrate, Patna. ----------- 1. BIPIN KUMAR SINGH, son of Vidya Nand Singh 2. Vidya Nand Singh, son of Late Janak Singh, both residents of Mohalla- Chandravanshi Nagar, Jehanabad, P.S.-Jehanabad, District-Jehanabad, at present residing at Sector No.9-B, Street No.12, Quarter No.378, Bokaro, P.S.-Horla, District-Bokaro(Jharkhand)------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Raju Kumar Singh, son of Sri Sita Ram Singh, resident of Mohalla- Ashok Nagar, Road no.8, Ram Lakhan Path, P.S. Karkarbagh, District-Patna- --------------------------------------------------------------------------(Opp. Parties) ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH Mandhata Singh,J. None appears. Complaint case, in brief , is that he was married with daughter of petitioner no.2 in the year 1983. Right from 1993 Sudha Devi never remained regular at her sasural, always demanding separation and maintenance. It has further been alleged that on 28.9.2001 at about 8-15 a.m. petitioners along with 5/6 unknown persons came at the verandah of the complainant and asked the complainant to come out for Panchyati. In that course, they always insisted on for maintenance to complainant’s wife while complainant was insisting to keep his wife and to maintain her and her three children. Ultimately, when complainant refused to pay Rs.50,000/- for maintenance, petitioner no.1 abused the complainant and further petitioner no.2 ordered to shoot. Thereafter, petitioner no.1 fired from his pistol though that could not hit the complainant. But he was - 2 - assaulted by means of butt of the pistol causing even grievous injury. They further snatched wrist watch and chain of gold along with Philips radio. Two witnesses appeared and corroborated the above version, taking which into consideration cognizance is taken. Illegality and probability of the case is questioned on the ground that maintenance and complaint case for the offence under sections 379, 342 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code was pending filed on behalf of the daughter of petitioner no.2 but constituting prima facie case pendency of any case is immaterial specifically that is not the stage to be taken into consideration though can be good defence for the accused persons. Thus, I find no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance. This revision application is dismissed. Patna High Court, 9th September, 2009, NAFR/Sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )