Md. Tajuddin And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.20420 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -394 Year- 2010 Thana -MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUNGER ===========================================================
1. Md. Tajuddin , S/o Md. Reyajuddin
2. Md.Reyajuddin S/o Late Md. Natho
3. Bajo W/o Md. Reyajuddin
4. Noor Alam @ Noor Uddin @ Mitthu S/o Md. Reyazuddin All resident of Village Nayagaw P.O. Basdeopur P.S. Kotwali, District Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Afsana Khatoon W/o Tajuddin D/o Md. Saheb resident of Village Nayagaon P.O. Basdeopur P.S. Kotwali District Munger. At present resident of Village Hazrat Ganj Bara, Gali No. 4, P.O. Munger, P.S. Kasim Bazar District Munger. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
For the Opposite Party/s :
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. The present application is filed for quashing of cognizance order dated 07.12.2010 and subsequent criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 394(C) of 2010 pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, who has taken cognizance in the matter under Sections 323, 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant is in the habit of lodging complaint repeatedly under
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20420 of 2014 dt.21-11-2017 2/2 Section 498A of I.P.C. and earlier case was withdrawn on the basis of compromise but again she has filed this case against the petitioners though husband is always ready to keep her but she does not intend to reside in matrimonial home.
4. Contrary to that, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 negates the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that wife is dependant on the husband for her care and maintenance, therefore, after lodging of the first complaint, she compromised as her husband was ready to keep her with respect and dignity but again, after withdrawal of the first case, started torturing her in connection with demand of dowry and the allegations are specific against all accused petitioners.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of record, the Court finds that allegations levelled in the complaint are specific against all the petitioners and it is not the case that ingredients of the offence are not disclosed in the complaint against the accused persons. So there is no need for interference in the cognizance order. It is dismissed accordingly. (Arun Kumar, J) Sujit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date27.11.2017 Transmission Date 27.11.2017