IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29111 of 2010 HARI NATH MAHTO @ HARI NATH PRASAD Son of Sri Shiv Shankar Mahto, Resident of Village- Ramchandrapur, Post Office- Neknampur, P.S. Deoria, District- Muzaffarpur. At present resident at Mohalla- Sikandarpur, P.S. Town, District-Muzaffarpur -------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Muzaffarpur 3. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur. 4. Anchal Kumari, Daughter of Badri Mandal, Resident – Balughat, Road No. 11, Thakur Mohalla, P.S. Town- District- Muzaffarpur. -----------Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, Advocate For the State:- Mrs. Puspa Sinha, APP ------------------------ 3. 21.01.2011 A complaint case no. 2384 of 2006 was filed against the petitioner in which cognizance was taken under Section 376/420 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This case was filed on 2.11.2006 and cognizance was taken on 11.5.2007. In the meantime the complainant filed a petition before the DIG who referred the matter to the police station for consideration and the officer-in-charge of Muzaffarpur has instituted an F.I.R. No. 163 of 2007. In this case cognizance was also taken under Section 493/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter moved this Court against the order dismissing his discharge application. The High Court by its order 2 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5868 of 2010 dated 17.2.2010 dismissed the application passed the following order. “After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application to avail the other remedy available under the Cr.P.C. Permission is granted.” Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court, the office of this Court raised an objection that the writ application is not maintainable and an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to have been filed in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly converted the Criminal Writ application, into an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this case the petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance in both the cases. I may also mention here that the petitioner did not file any application for discharge in the police case and now the charges have been framed against the petitioner. On perusal of both the Complaint and the first information report, this Court finds that the allegations are common. It has been alleged that petitioner’s son started a physical relation with the complainant promising him that he would marry her. During the relationship she became pregnant and it is 3 alleged that the petitioner persuaded her to abort the bady. It is also alleged that this petitioner demanded some money and a Hero Honda Motor Cycle as dowry for marriage. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, which are common in both the complaint case and the police case cognizance was taken and charge has been framed. There is no difference between the allegation in the complaint case and the police case, and, as such I direct that both the cases should be heard together as the petitioner would have to face two trials which cannot be justified in view of the fact that the allegations in both the complaint case and the police case are same. Petitioner is at liberty to bring this Courts’ order to the notice of the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, who will fix both the Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2008 and 604 of 2007 before the same Court which will be heard together and be treated to be amalgated. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Anand Kr. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)