IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.16871 of 2009 1. UDAY NARAIN RAI, S/O LATE MURAT RAI 2. DHANWATI DEVI, W/O UDAY NARAIN RAI BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CIVIL LINES, BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR (TOWN), DISTRICT BUXAR 3. SONI KUMARI, W/O AJAY KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE BHANBIGHA, P.S. DHANACHHUA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR 4. SANGEETA DEVI, W/O BIHARI RAI 5. BIHARI RAI, S/O LATE TRIYOGI RAI BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CHOUKIYA, P.S. KRISHNABRAHM (BRAHMPUR) DISTRICT BUXAR .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. REENA DEVI, W/O SURENDRA RAI, R/O VILLAGE BALBANDH, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT BHOJPUR .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /5/ 18 January 2011 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is for quashing the first information report lodged by the informant. 3. The prosecution case is that marriage of this informant was solemnized with Surendra Rai on 14.02.2006 and there is allegation of subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of rupees two lacs and maruti van and on 14.02.2006 her husband and nandoi (husband’s sister’s husband) assaulted and took her sasural. It is further alleged that on 02.03.2009 she learnt that her husband is going to marry another lady and so on 04.03.2009 she went to the police station, but, on 2 reaching sasural she was abused and thrown out. On 04.03.2009 when she, again, came to sasural and when on 27.03.2009 she went to Buxar, it is alleged that her husband, Surendra Rai, father-in-law nanad, Nilotma Devi, took her to sasural, but, she was again assaulted and subjected to cruelty and her golden chain, earing and money had been snatched and thrown her out. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant the case has been instituted under Sections 498A of the Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has moved this petition for quashing the first information report on the ground that earlier with regard to the occurrence, dated 14.02.2006, a complaint petition was filed in the year 2006, with regard to the same allegation of subjecting to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand. However, in the meantime, a restitution petition has been filed and the husband is ready to keep the victim and even during this period they live together and blessed with a male child and a joint petition has been filed in the Family Court, Buxar, on 26.03.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision reported in 2007(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.), 81 (N. Suriyakala Vrs. A. Mohandoss & Ors.). 3 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, however, submits that the victim was taken to sasural several times in view of the compromise, but, he was kept at Mohania and husband do not take care of her and she is kept in the house at village home and, subsequently thrown out subjecting cruelty still she is living at her naihar. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the lower Court, 4-5 times, the victim went with the husband, but, she was subjected to cruelty, hence, compelled to file the first information report and still the victim is in naihar, hence, the parties did not come to a compromise or respected the compromise and it is submitted that the victim is still living at her naihar and not with her husband. 7. The decision which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners 2007(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.), 81 (supra) is a case where the parties compromised and agreed to live together. 8. Having regard to the facts, it appears that husband several times took the victim on the pretext of compromise, but, subjected her to cruelty and the victim is still living at her naihar and not willing to live with her husband. Hence, any order in terms of 2007(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.), 81 4 (supra) can not be passed under the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. However, the allegation is made in the first information report with regard to the occurrence, dated 02.03.2009, and onwards and allegations made in fardbeyan on the basis of which the first information report lodged makes out cognizable offence. Hence, under Section 154, 155 and 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code police got a jurisdiction to lodge the first information report and investigate the case. However, complaint has been filed with regard to occurrence from 2000, the date of marriage, till the filing of the first information report in the year 2006 whereas the first information report has been filed with regard to the occurrence, dated 02.03.2009, and onwards and the allegation made in the first information report makes out an offence and the lodging of the first information report and investigation is not barred even if the complaint case is going on when the date of occurrence the date of occurrence and place of occurrence defers and, hence, is no ground to quash the first information report. 10. Under the facts and circumstances, it is stated that several times the parties entered into the compromise and the victim was taken by the husband, but, subjected to cruelty 5 and thrown out of sasural and still the victim is residing at naihar, hence, I do not find any merit in this application. 11. This criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)