Criminal Miscellanious No.31452 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. ANIL MURMU, SON OF SRI CHHOTE LAL MURMU 2. CHHOTE LAL MURMU, SON OF LATE MUNSI MURMU 3. MANKO HASDA, WIFE OF CHHOTE LAL MURMU 4. MOHAN MURMU, SON OF CHHOTE LAL MURMU 5. BITIYA MURMU, DAUGHTER OF CHHOTE LAL MURMU RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARIPUR TINKONMA, P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. AMRITA SAGAR @ RANJU SOREN, DAUGHTER OF CHURKA SOREN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARIPUR TINKONMA, P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :- Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.1.2003 by which the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura has taken cognizance under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint Case No. 723 of 2002. The petitioners are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister of petitioner no. 1. 3. The allegation in the complaint petition is that there was a demand by the in laws for a pair of calf. It is said that the husband used to ill treat the complainant. It is also alleged that the 2 parents wanted to marry the petitioner no. 1 to another lady. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as the allegations against the in laws are concerned, they are absolutely vague and not at all specific. It is further submitted that there was a proceeding under Section 107 between the petitioner no. 1 and the father of the complainant and her family members. In the 107 proceeding it has been stated by some of the witnesses that the complainant Amrita Sagar @ Ranju Soren was a woman of lose character and that she has given birth to a baby boy although she was not married. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the lady is not married to petitioner no. 1 and thus the allegations of demand of dowry are absolutely untrue. 5. This Court cannot consider at this stage relying on judgment of the 107 proceeding, the evidence with respect to the factum of the marriage, as the actual evidence is not before this court. However, this Court also comes to the conclusion that as far as the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, there is no specific allegation against them and as such the order of cognizance against the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 is unwarranted. 6. This application is partly allowed. As far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he may raise all issues raised in this Court at the appropriate stage in this case. Patna High Court Dated the 28th March, 2011 N.A.F.R./Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)