MANJIT SINGH @ BADAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for quashing the order dated 09.11.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P.S. Case No. 169 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 2143 of 2006, whereby he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498 (A) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) It is submitted by Sri Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that part of impugned order by which cognizance under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was taken is illegal because as per Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as amended by Bihar Amendment Act 4 of 1976 no Court can take cognizance of offence under Section 4 without previous sanction of the State Government. It is further submitted that petitioner filed a divorce suit prior to lodging of first information report, thus, in view of judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) JCR 183 (Jhr.) impugned order by which cognizance under Section 498 (A) of the I.P.C. was taken illegal.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri M.B. Lal, learned Additional P.P. for the State and Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 fairly stated that in view of Bihar Amendment no Court can take cognizance of offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act without previous sanction of State Government. They, however, submitted that pendency of divorce suit is no ground for quashing a criminal case. It is submitted that in the instant case from no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that informant lodged present case with intention to take revenge from the petitioner, because on the date of lodging of first information report informant was not knowing that any matrimonial suit is pending against her. It is submitted that judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the facts of this case.