DHANESHWAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before the instant case was lodged in which cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 498A, 323,324,506 of the Indian Penal Code, one case had earlier been lodged with respect to commission of offence under Section 498A and also under Section 307 as well as other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code in which petitioner was acquitted, though on the basis of the compromise. Thereafter again a case was lodged but on the basis of allegation, a proceeding under Section 107 was drawn and therefore, it is apparent that the parties are in litigating term and therefore,it is quite obvious that in order to harass this petitioner, opposite party no.2 has again filed a case with respect to commission of offence under Sections 498A, 323,324, 506 of the Indian Penal Code under which cognizance has been taken by the court, though no offence is made out under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code even if the entire allegation made in the FIR is taken to be true and therefore, the order taking cognizance be quashed.

(3.) As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the allegation made in the FIR certainly constitute certain offences under which cognizance has been taken.