MD.IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 79 of 2003 corresponding to T.R. No. 1090 of 2003, pending in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 13th August, 2003 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) BEFORE deciding the case on merits, it is necessary to state the relationship between the petitioners and opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 (Md. Ibrahim), whereas petitioner No. 2 (Md. Mobarak alias Chamru) and petitioner No. 3 (Md. Mazid alias Mazlu) are the brother -in -laws (Bhaisur); petitioner No. 4 (Bibi Hazbi) is the mother -in -law; petitioner No. 5 (Bibi Salma) is the sister - in -law; Petitioner No. 6 (Md. Manir) is the brother -in -law (Bahnoi), petitioner No. 7 (Bibi Dukhani) is the sister -in -law and petitioner No. 8 (Md. Lukman) is another brother -in -law of opposite party No. 2.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 opposed the prayer made in the present case and submitted that the Magistrate can take cognizance on a protest petition, treating it as a complaint, even if final report has been submitted by the police and accepted by the Magistrate. He placed reliance on the Patna High Court decision in Bhagwat Pandey and others V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1985 BBCJ 760. But the opposite party No. 2 cannot derive advantage of the aforesaid case. In Bhagwat Pandey, (supra), the Magistrate accepted the final report submitted by the police. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed by the complainant in the said case which was treated to be a complaint petition filed by the complainant and cognizance was taken against the accused. In the present case, in the complaint case, PCR; Case No. 9 of 1996 filed by opposite party No. 2, final report was submitted by the police in favour of the accused (petitioners). Thereafter, although a protest petition was filed by the complainant in the said case which was treated to be a complaint petition filed by the complainant and cognizance was taken against the accused. In the present case, in the complaint case, PCR. Case No. 9 of 1996 filed by opposite party No. 2, final report was submitted by the police in favour of the accused (petitioners). Thereafter, although a protest petition was filed by opposite party No. 2, it was not pressed by her and the final report was accepted by the Magistrate in the year 1996. Thus, the protest petition filed by opposite party No. 2 reached finality. So far as the PCR Case No. 79 of 2003 is concerned, it does not arise out of the earlier protest petition. It is a fresh complaint case filed by opposite party No. 2 on 17th February, 2003 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda for the same offence alleged to have committed during same period against the same accused (petitioners). Such allegation against the accused made by same complainant having reached finality in August, 1996, the opposite party No. 2 cannot be allowed to regulate same allegation again.