IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30706 of 2006 YOGENDRA PANDIT & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 11 8.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as also learned APP for the State. By the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.4.2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 222 of 2005 by virtue of which the order taking cognizance in the case against these petitioners has been upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC I , Begusarai. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the marriage was solemnized on 7.5.1999 and Vidai was done only in 2002. Some differences had crept in between the parties which led to filing of the complaint case under sections 379 and 380 of the IPC against the opposite party no.2. Not only this even a case of divorce came to be filed and thereafter as a backlash the present case under sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been filed in which cognizance has been taken which is the subject matter in the application. The primary submission of the petitioners is that in the background of the dispute, the filing of the present complaint and its maintenance is a abuse of the process of the Court because - 2 - the present complaint has come to be filed after all the steps have been taken by the petitioners earlier. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the hands of the complainant was forced in the circumstances because the petitioners only gave a false hope and assurance from time to time to sort out the matter and kept the complainant in dark. All the steps have been taken to build up the defence in their favour. Not only this the opposite party no.2 is being prosecuted in the complaint case which has been filed earlier and it will be unfair on the part of the justice delivery system to allow these petitioners to be set free for the crime which they have committed earlier. I have perused the order passed in criminal revision as well as heard the submissions on behalf of the parties in this regard. This Court does not find any illegality in the revisional order and same cannot be quashed at this stage. If the petitioners advised they can urge all the points which may be available to them before the trial court at the time of framing of the charge. This Court is not inclined to allow the application which is dismissed with the above liberty. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)