IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18098 of 2007 LAL BAHADUR CHOUDHARY, S/o. Shiv Narayan Choudhary, r/o. Behind Sarsawati Bust Stand, P.S. Banmankhi, District- Purnea. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. Rani Kumari, w/o. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, r/o. Sultan Pokhar, P.S. Farbisganj, District- Araria at present Rajhat, P.S. Banmankhi, District- Purnea. ------------ 06. 26.03.2010 This application is against the order dated 01.06.2006 of the learned S.D.J.M., Purnea in C.A. No. 2273 of 2005, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 498A, 323 of the I.P.C. as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioner and others. Initially the complainant Rani Kumari had filed complaint against the petitioner and five others alleging offence under Sections 406, 498A, 313, 120B of the I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. On filing of the complaint learned Magistrate conducted the inquiry and witnesses were examined but the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against only two accused and cognizance was not taken against four others including the petitioner. The complainant preferred 2 Cr.Revision No.214 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Purnea, which was decided by order dated 31.08.2006 and the order dated 08.12.2006 of the learned S.D.J.M., Purnea was set aside, finding material against accused Nos. 2 to 5 and the matter was remitted back again to the learned S.D.J.M., Purnea for further inquiry and passing necessary orders. It was after the passing of the aforesaid revisional order the learned S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance of the offence against all the accused persons including the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional order of the learned Sessions Judge does not discuss any material against the petitioner. Learned Addl. P.P. replied that the learned Sessions Judge did not direct for taking cognizance against any particular accused but on the materials as found in the order, the order of the learned Magistrate whereby he did not take cognizance against the accused was set aside and the matter was 3 remitted back for further inquiry and passing orders according to law. It is submitted that on perusal of the materials further the S.D.J.M. had taken cognizance against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material against the petitioner and that neither the complainant nor any witness has leveled any allegation on the petitioner. In this context paragraph Nos. 8,9 & 10 of the complaint petition is referred to by the learned Addl.P.P. and also the learned counsel for the informant. In paragraph Nos. 9 & 10, there is specific allegation that when the father of the complainant went to the petitioner for re-conciliation of the matter the petitioner insulted him and he also asked for payment of the demanded dowry and he threatened that if the money is not paid the life of the complainant will be spoiled. Thus, considering the specific allegation, I find that the learned S.D.J.M. is justified in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. There is no need to make any interference in the 4 impugned order. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)