IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.57809 of 2007 1. MD.OWAIS @ BADE MIAN, S/O LATE MD JALIL 2. RUKHSANA KAHTOON, W/O MD. OWAIS 3. KAUSAR KHATOON D/O ALIMUDDIN 4. JAIMUM NISHA, W/O ALIMUDDIN 5. JAVED, S/O ALIMUDDIN 6. MD. TAMANNA @ ZIYAUDDIN, S/O ALIMUDDIN 7. MD. ALIMUDDIN, S/O LATE MUNSHI FARID ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PANSALLA, P.S. SINGHWARA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAYEEDA KHATOON, D/O MUKHTAR AHMAD, W/O JIYAUDDIN @ TAMNNA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAPURA, P.S., SINGHWARA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /3/ 16.04.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for quashing the order, dated 23.08.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 17 of 2006 by which he has ordered to issue summons against the accused persons after taking cognizance for offence under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution case, as alleged in the first information report by the informant, Sayeeda 2 Khatoon, that marriage was solemnized about two years earlier and the accused persons, father-in-law, mother-in-law, nanad, bhaisur and gotni used to demand Rs.45,000/- and ten bhar gold and subject to cruelty. However, a complaint case was filed which was sent for institution under Sections 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Singhwara P.S. Case No. 17 of 2006, dated 03.03.2006 was instituted, however, after investigation the police filed final form and, thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned order, disagreeing with the final form has taken cognizance and issued summons. From the impugned order itself it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate mentioned that he perused the statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and it appears that the informant has supported the case at paragraph 31 of the case diary and in her further statement the informant’s father and mother also supported the case at paragraph 4 and 5 of the case diary and other witnesses have not supported and the family members of the informant has supported the case though the witnesses have not denied the marriage of the informant and, hence, the statement of informant and family members are only to proceed with the case and accordingly took the cognizance. 3 From the impugned order, itself, it appears that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a matrimonial suit is filed for restitution of the conjugal rights and during the pendency of the appeal the same has been allowed, however, this Court in a criminal miscellaneous application challenging the order of cognizance can not go into other fact to appreciate and this Court at this stage can not meticulously examine. However, the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance or issuing process if has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that there is any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order and, hence, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the order. However, the petitioners may raise the issue at the stage of framing of the charge. 3. With these observations and directions, this application is dismissed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )