CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3519 OF 2001 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------- MD. ABDULLAH @ MD. ABDULLAH KHAN son of Majhar Alam resident of Kalibagh, P.S.-Bettiah, District- West Champaran. ….. ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Hasan Tara Khatoon daughter of Maqbul Ahmad, resident of Aadhkaparia, P.S.-Ramgadwa District- Champaran. …… …….Opp.Parties. -------- For the petitioner: Mr.Bashishtha Narain Mishr For Opp.Party No.2: Mr.Manoj Kumar For the State: Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, Addl. P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 23.1.2001 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Criminal Revision No.199 of 2000 whereby the revisional court has rejected the revision petition which was preferred against the order of cognizance dated 27.7.2000 passed by learned Sub.Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Trial No.1104 of 2000 arising out of Complaint Case No.884C of 2000. By order dated 27.7.2000 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The sole point which has been taken in the present case by the petitioner is that the petitioner was having no relation with the husband of the complainant i.e. opposite party 2 no.2 and, as such, he was not liable to be prosecuted for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his stand learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to number of documents to show that the husband of the complainant was son of Khairati Mian and not son of the petitioner. However, in the complaint petition husband of the complainant was shown as adopted son of the petitioner. Since it is difficult for this court to come to a definite conclusion as to whether the husband of the complainant was actually adopted son of the petitioner or not, this court is not inclined to interfere with either of the orders. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all these points before the court concerned at appropriate stage. It is expected that if such a petition is filed by the petitioner enclosing documents which were placed before this court, the learned Magistrate may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with. 3. With the above observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Patna High Court The 10th November, 2010 Md.S./NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)