IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31436 of 2008 1. Santosh Kumar, son of Hari Prasad Sah, 2. Mamta Kumari, daughter of Hari Prasad Sah, 3. Hari Prasad Sah, son of Late Mishri Prasad Sah, 4. Chanda Devi, wife of Hari Prasad sah, all of Aliganj, Gangti Road, PS Mojahidpur, district Bhagalpur – petitioners. Vs. The State of Bihar. 2 25.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 31.5.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC VI, Munger in Cr. Revision No. 69/2007 and the order, dated 23.3.2007 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Complaint Case No. 335C/2005 by which the court below has rejected the petition of the petitioners that Complaint case No. 335C/2005 and Complaint Case No. 424C/2006 should be tried together. The facts are that the complainant who is represented in this case had filed initially a case under section 498A and other sections of the Penal Code alleging that her husband and his family members were torturing her and demanding dowry. In Complaint Case No. 335C/2005 on the intervention of the court there was a compromise between the parties and the complainant began to live with her husband. In fact she remained with him for about five days and there after it appears that she was threatened and her father went to the Superintendent of Police, Munger and thereafter she was recovered from her matrimonial house. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when 2 the girl was recovered, she did not state anything before the Investigating Officer of the case. Subsequently after the recovery was made, the complainant has filed the Complaint Case No. 424C/2006 in which she has made allegations that she was asked to get a dowry of Rs.1 lakh. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are same in both the complaint cases. The time of occurrence is between 31.5.2004 to 22.2.2005 in Complaint Case No. 335C/2005 whereas the duration of occurrence in Complaint Case No. 424C/2006 is 31.5.2004 to 9.5.2006 and as such it is submitted that the facts of both the cases overlap each other and the trial should take place together. As far as Complaint Case No. 335C/2005 is concerned, in this case cognizance has been taken and charges have already been framed. In Complaint Case No. 424C/2006 cognizance has been taken and summons have been issued to the petitioners. However, the petitioners have not appeared after issuance of the summons, rather, they have chosen to move this court. The present case has been filed making allegations as made in the earlier case in addition to which it has been said that the complainant was tortured after she went to her matrimonial home after compromise in the court below. Therefore, the fact is that the allegations are not the same. Besides this, the earlier case is ready and ripe for trial, wherein the present case is at the initial stage. If at all the matters could have been heard together, it could only have been possible if the stage of both the cases was almost parallel to each 3 other. The petitioners will always have the liberty to file a petition for amalgamation if they surrender and cooperate with the court below so that this case should also be ripe for framing of charges. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)