Rakesh Kumar, J. - (1.)Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 3.11.2001 passed by Sri Vikram Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawada in T.R.No.731 of 2003 arising out of Complaint Case No. C 217 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 217 of 2001. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with petitioner no.1 in the year 1986. Thereafter, the accused persons started torturing the complainant and as such, on number of occasions she had filed cases against her husband and in-laws. After filing of such cases the accused persons persuaded the complainant and thereafter the complainant started to live with her husband but immediately thereafter it was noticed by the complainant that her husband had solemnized marriage with petitioner no.3 and, as such, she first made a complaint to the office of the authorities where petitioner no.1 was employed. On notice by the authorities, while she went to the office to make statement, she was assaulted outside the office premises. Thereafter by force petitioner nos. 1 and 2 carried the complainant to their house. Thereafter, the complainant was again assaulted. On such allegations, the complaint petition was filed by the complainant. After filing of the complaint petition, witnesses were examined during enquiry. The complainant during enquiry produced altogether three witnesses who corroborated the allegations made in the complaint petition and thereafter the learned Magistrate prima facie satisfied with the offences had passed order of cognizance.
(3.)Mr.Arjun Prasad No.1, while challenging the order of cognizance, has argued that time without number the complainant had filed cases against petitioner no.1. Even a petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected due to non-prosecution. A complaint which was filed in the year 1998 was also rejected due to non-prosecution. It was submitted that opposite party no.2 is a habitual litigant and on this very ground the order of cognizance and entire prosecution in the present case is liable to be set aside.