IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50356 of 2007 Tengari Pal son of Late Ramdahin Pal, resident of village- Isari, P.S. Durgawati, District- Kaimur. … Petitionr. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Madhuri Devi w/o Tengari Pal, daughter of Deonandan Pal at present resided at Betari, P. S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. .. Opp. Parties. ----------- 5. 29.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for complainant, opposite party no. 2. The only substantive plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to the impugned order taking cognizance for offence under Sections 498 A, 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is that even earlier the opposite party no. 2, complainant- wife had filed a complaint for offence under Section 498 A I.P.C. and therefore when in the present complaint petition the date of occurrence ranges from 20.5.1997 to 14.11.2006 which would also cover the period of earlier complaint, the criminal prosecution by way of present complaint must be held to be abuse of the process of the court. He also submits that a divorce case is pending and in fact the present complaint has been filed only with a view to harass the petitioner on account of his filing of the 2 aforesaid divorce case. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also produced before this Court not only the solemn affirmation of the complainant, opposite party no. 2, but also materials forming part of records of complaint case to show that earlier when the complaint under Section 498 A was filed by the wife, opposite party no. 2, the petitioner had sought to enter into a compromise but after aforesaid case under Section 498 was disposed of in terms of compromise, the petitioner had again resorted to some sort of torture leading to filing of the present complaint case. In the considered opinion of this court, the said plea of counsel for the petitioner only as with regard to earlier case being filed by wife of opposite party no. 2 for alleged offence under Section 498 A will not stand as a bar in filing second complaint petition as with regard to a period which was not covered by earlier complaint petition. That apart when this court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether during the pendency of divorce case any amount was being paid by the petitioner for maintaining his wife, 3 opposite party no. 2 he had frankly conceded that he has no instruction on the said issue. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 however informed this court that opposite party no. 2 was not being supported in any manner by the petitioner. Once this aspect of the matter becomes clear that opposite party no. 2 was allured by the petitioner husband to enter into compromise in the complaint filed by her and again she was subjected to same sort of torture by the husband, that by itself would be sufficient to make the complaint petition filed by opposite party no. 2 maintainable on merits. That apart once this court would find that opposite party no. 2 was also not being supported in any manner, the cruelty on the part of the husband in giving mental torture to his wife at least till the pendency of divorce case would be writ large on the face of record. Considering aforesaid aspects, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order taking cognizance and accordingly, this application is dismissed. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)