IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15900 of 2008 1.MD.RIZWAN son of Md. Usman 2.Md. Usman son of Zaffar Alimiyan 3.Hassina Khatoon wife of Md.Usman 4.Md.Irfan son of Md.Usman 5.Niqhat Khatoon @ Niqhat Bano daughter of Md.Usman 6.Nizhat Khatoon @ Nizhat Bano daughter of Md.Usman 7.Md.Raju son of Md.Shahid (Late) 8.Nisrat @ Nisrat Bano wife of Md.Raju 9.Md. Qualam son of Md.Tauhid 10.Israt Khaatoon @ Israt Bano wife of Md.Qualam 11.Md.Hussain son of Anwar Ahamd (I) Accused No.1 to 9 are the resident of village- Madhopur, P.S.-Maniyari and Dist.-Muzaffarpur (II) Accused No.10 to 11 are the resident of village-Sumera, P.S.-Kudhni, Dist.-Muzaffarpur ……. ……Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Bibi Anwari Khatoon wife of Md.Rizwan daughter of Md.Amamuddin a resident of the village-Chandan Patti P.S.-Sakara, Dist.-Muzaffarpur ----------- 2. 28.6.2010. Heard Mr. S.S.P.Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order passed long back on 29.8.2005 in Trial No.1561 of 2008 arising out of Complaint Case No.1169 of 2005. By the said order Sri P.K.Sharan, S.D.J.M. (East), Muzaffarpur has taken cognizance of the offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing this petition, submits that opposite party no.2, who is wife of petitioner no.1 has filed the present complaint only with a view to create a 2 defence in a case which has been initiated on the basis of complaint filed by petitioner no.1 against father, brother and other family members of opposite party no.2. It was submitted that a complaint vide Complaint Case No.C-632 of 2005 was filed by petitioner no.1 against family members of opposite party no.2 with an allegation that the accused persons had committed the offence under sections 147, 323, 341, 366, 380, 386 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. After filing of the said complaint petition, the opposite party no.2, who is daughter of Md. Immuddun (Accused N0.1) in Complaint Case No.C-632 of 2005 has filed the present compliant petition falsely and with a view to put pressure on petitioner no.1 so that he may not proceed with Complaint Case No.632 of 2005. On this ground learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance in the present case. Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that in the present complaint petition there is specific averment which discloses the commission of offence under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act and, according to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while passing the order of cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed no mistake. Accordingly, he has prayed to reject this petition. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record. At the very 3 outset this court is of the opinion that in the present case since the order of cognizance was challenged by the petitioners after three years, on this ground alone the petition is liable to be rejected. Moreover, I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance. The complaint petition discloses the allegation. So far as the ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present complaint was filed maliciously only with a view to create a defence is concerned, I am of the view that such plea is not sufficient for quashing of the order of cognizance which was passed long back in the year 2005. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)