MATUK NATH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused Matuk Nath Choudhary for quashing the order dated 28.09.2007 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Criminal Revision No. 409 of 2007 rejecting the revision and also for setting aside the order dated 16th June, 2007 passed by Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 2055C of 2006 rejecting the petition filed u/s. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) ABHA Choudhary lodged a first information report on 7.7.2006 against her husband Matuk Nath Choudhary stating therein that her husband is a professor and lives in 'B ' Block, Professor Colony at Saidpur. It is stated that her husband has not a good character and runs a racket by allurement his girl student. It is stated that when she came to know thereof, she protested and thereupon her husband assaulted her and threatened to kill. Thereafter, her husband started living in Professor Colony on the plea that she would open one Prakashan in the of Momuksha Prakashan. It is alleged that in the evening at 6 P.M. on 7.7.2006 she went to the residence of her husband at Professor Colony and gave a knock to the door and her husband opened the door. She found a girl lying half nacked on the bed and also her husband in abnormal position. She protested and as a result her husband and the girl Juli Kumari caught hold of her from the back side and began to press her neck. The girl Juli Kumari came with a knife and wanted to hurl the knife on her neck. It is alleged that she made a cry and thereupon nearby people came there and she was saved. It is alleged that she has got letters and photograph of that girl Juli Kumari and that girl has not a good character. A case under Ss. 341, 323 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition of complaint on 19.07.2006 giving details of the conduct and misbehaviour of her husband prior to the date 7.7.2006 and also gave a detail of the occurrence that took place on 7.7.2006. After investigation charge -sheet has been submitted under Ss. 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code After enquiry, cognizance has been taken under Ss. 323, 342 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code in the complaint case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in both the police case and the complaint case are substantially the same and hence the provisions of Sec. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted. He, therefore, submits that both the cases i.e. the police case and the complaint case be tried together and hence the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State submits that cognizance in the police case has been taken under Ss. 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas in the complaint case cognizance has been under Ss. 323. 341 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the allegations in the complaint case disclose offence u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and after enquiry cognizance has been taken thereunder. He submits that in the police case charge -sheet has not been submitted u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance has also not been taken thereunder. He, therefore, submits that the allegations in both the cases are different and hence the provisions of Sec. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not attracted and hence the miscellaneous case be dismissed.