IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52811 of 2007 1. MD. AKRAM SIDDIQUE 2. MD ARIF SIDDIQUE 3. MD ASIF SIDDIQUE @ MUNNA 4. ASHRAFUDDIN SIDDIQUE @ ASHRAFUDDIN AHMAD SIDDIQUE. …PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. LAL BIBI, WIFE OF ABDUL MOTI SIDDIQUE. …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioners : Mr.Bal Mukund Pd. Sinha For the State : Mr.Matloob Rab,APP For O.P.No.2 :Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha & : Mr. Javed Aslam ----------- 04. 03.09.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Present is an application seeking to challenge the order taking cognizance. Learned Magistrate on the basis of materials produced in course of enquiry, made under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for shot the ‘Code’) has found that there is a prima facie case against the accused persons and, accordingly, cognizance under section 498A IPC has been taken. Petitioner no.1 is the husband of the victim, whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are own brothers of the husband of the victim. Petitioner no.4 is father-in-law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier to this in the year 1999, a complaint was filed which, however, ended in compromise. Subsequent thereto, the present complaint has been filed in which it has been alleged that she was tortured for non- fulfilment of demand of dowry at the hands of the accuseds and thereafter she was ousted from the matrimonial home. It is contended 2 that subsequent thereto another complaint has been filed (Annexure- 2) which is pending consideration. Learned counsel thus submitted that the present case is hit by the principle of res judicata. It is also submitted that allegations as against the petitioners are vague and general and that the prosecution has been lodged with mala fide intention. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is contended that the earlier complaint filed in 1999 did not see the stage of trial. It was compromised and the order was passed on that basis. So far as the subsequent case (Annexure-2) is concerned, it is stated that the same is in respect of different set of facts/allegations. It appears, aggrieved by the present order, the petitioners had filed Cr.Rev. No.50/2005. Learned revisional court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the order dated 17.08.2004, passed by learned Magistrate does not require interference considering the scope of the jurisdiction exercised by the court. After hearing both parties, I am of the view that the order impugned cannot be said to perverse and/or perfunctory meriting interference by this Court. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )