IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4418 of 2007 SHAKIRUZZAMA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioners : M/S Md. Khurshid Alam and Arun Kumar Bhagat, Advocates For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Ram Nath, Advocate __________ O R D E R Three of the four persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case no.434 of 2004 have prayed for the quashing of the orders dated 11.12.2004, 26.9.2006 and 4.12.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City. It is worth noting that by the order dated 11.12.2004, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. as also Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the named accused whereas by order dated 26.9.2006 the prayer of the petitioners for their discharge was rejected and by order dated 4.12.2006 charges were framed against the accused persons including the petitioners. At the very threshold stage it must out of necessity be mentioned that the matter was heard by a Bench of a Single Judge of this Court who made commendable efforts to reconcile the matter between the parties and bring some life in an otherwise truncated marriage and more than an year was spent over the nitty –gritty but notwithstanding the specious latitude given to the parties the entire exercise at reconciliation ended in a miserable failure primarily because - 2 - of the bigoted resoluteness of the parties. Accordingly, the case was taken up to be heard on merits. At the very outset I must point out that a common prayer has been made to quash three orders passed at three separate and distinct stages of the proceeding which is neither permissible nor warranted by the procedural law. Therefore, I have proceeded to restrict the hearing of this case only on the order dated 4.12.2006 which is the last order and whereunder charges have been framed against the accused persons. At the same time I fail to understand how the matter got through the probing scalpel of the stamp reporter. The Apex Court in the case of State of Delhi –Vrs. Gyan Devi reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. 124 (SC) observed that at a stage before entire prosecution evidence has come on record quashing of charge is not proper. There is another aspect of the matter. Though the points raised is a jurisdictional one, on going through the complaint it is apparent that part of the cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court taking cognizance which would be apparent from paragraph 7 of the complaint petition. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 12th September,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.