- (1.) BOTH the applications were heard together, as the parties are same and even the issues involved in these cases are same and are being disposed of by the common order.
(2.) ONE Rashmi Jain having married Anil Jain started living her in-law' place at Danapur, Patna. In course of time, relationship in between them seems to have become quite bitter. Thereupon, the father of Rashmi Jain lodged a case at Danapur Police Station alleging therein that her daughter is being subjected to torture by her husband, husband's elder brother-Bishnu Hari Jain and elder brother's wife-Saroj Jain on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs. On such allegation, a case was registered as Danapur P.S. Case No. 543 of 2000 under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. While the matter was under investigation, Rashmi Jain lodged a case at Katras Police Station putting more or less same allegation of subjection to torture by her husband and other family members on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On such allegation, Katras P.S. Case No. 42 of 2001 was lodged on 28.1.2001 under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband, husband's elder brother-Bishnu Hari Jain and elder brother's wife-Saroj Jain. Upon lodgment of the said case, Cr.W.J.C. No. 47 of 2001 was filed for quashing of said Katras P.S. Case No. 42 of 2001 on the ground that on the same set of allegation earlier Danapur P.S. Case No. 543 of 2000 had been filed on 14.3.2001 and as such, two F.I.Rs. on the same set of allegation cannot be maintained. However, Rashmi Jain also filed a complaint case bearing C.P. Case No. 1 of 2001 in the court of S.D.J.M., Dhanbad on the same allegation of subjection her to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by her husband and other family members. On such allegation, a case was registered as C.P. Case No. 1 of 2001 upon which cognizance of the offences was taken on 25.4.2001 against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Cr.M.P. No. 1348 of 2003 for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. No. 1 of 2001 including the order taking cognizance on the ground that for the same set of allegation upon which complaint was lodged and the cognizance has been taken, case has been lodged at two places; one at Katras Police Station and the other at Danapur Police Station. Under these circumstances, both the cases were heard together. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that upon the same set of allegation a complaint case has been lodged at Dhanbad and two police cases; one at Danapur and the other at Katras; have been lodged and, therefore, in the Cr. Misc. Petition prayer has been made to quash the order taking cognizance passed in the complaint case, whereas in the writ petition subsequent prosecution lodged at Katras has been sought to be quashed. However, Mr. Mahesh Tewary, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, submits that so far the case, which was lodged at Danapur, is concerned, when the police submitted final form, a protest petition has been filed on 7.4.2001 but nothing fruitful came out as yet, whereas the police has submitted final form in Katras P.S. Case No. 42 of 2001, which has been accepted by the court on 30.10.2006 and thereby the writ petition, in which prayer has been made to quash the proceeding of Katras P.S. Case No. 42 of 2001, has become infructuous. Thus, the situation remains that as on today only one case is there which is C.P. Case No. 1 of 2001 in which cognizance has already been taken on 25.4.2001 under Section 498 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act which order never warrants to be interfered with. In reply, it was submitted by Mr. Roy that it is true that in the case lodged at Katras Police Station, final form on being submitted has been accepted whereas in the case lodged at Danapur Police Station where final form has been submitted, a protest petition has been filed, which is still pending and, therefore, liberty be reserved with the petitioners to move before an appropriate Forum in case cognizance of the offences is taken on the protest filed in connection with the case lodged at Danapur. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it does appear that the writ petition, wherein prayer has been made to quash the criminal proceeding of Katras P.S. Case No. 42 of 2001, seems to have become infructuous, as in the said case final form submitted by the police has been accepted by the court. So far Cr. Misc. Petition is concerned, prayer has been made to quash the proceeding of the complaint case as on the same set of allegation, two police cases have been lodged. Again, it be stated that so far Katras P.S. Case No. 42 of 2001 is concerned, final form has already been submitted. Furthermore, even in the case lodged at Danapur, final form has been submitted. However, protest petition has been filed upon which still no order has been passed. Unless an order is passed, whereby cognizance is taken, it cannot be said that the case is pending at Danapur for the same set of allegation. Thus, the situation which presently exists is that only one case is there which is C.P. Case No. 1 of 2001 in which cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken after finding that prima facie case is made out and hence that order never warrants to be interfered with. However, before parting with this order, it be recorded that if the court at Danapur takes cognizance, it would be open for the petitioners if they wish to take recourse of the provision of Section 186 (6) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Cr.W.J.C. No. 47 of 2001 is hereby dismissed as infructuous, whereas Cr.M.P. No. 1348 of 2003 stands dismissed.;