The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the complainant's point of view and the allowance for the consideration of certain pleas before charging the petitioner.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Cognizance has been taken in this case under Sections 498A of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegation is that of demand and torture. Learned Magistrate took cognizance in this case. However, a witness was examined under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. and the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. At this stage the case has to be viewed on the complainant point of view.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there was compromise in the earlier case being Complaint Case No. 179 of 1996 and pursuant to the aforesaid compromise the aforesaid case was withdrawn on payment of one lakh and fifteen thousand rupees. Thereafter on 15.10.2000 this petitioner filed a complaint Case No. 966(0/2002. There was also a maintenance Case filed by Opposite Party No. 2 in which favourable order was passed in favour of Opposite Party No. 2. It is submitted this petitioner requested the Court earlier to adjust the amount towards payment of Rs. 400.00 as maintenance as she was getting one thousand and six rupees and twenty five paise. In pursuance of the payment of one lac fifty thousand by the petitioner it is stated that after receiving the money Opposite Party No. 2 refused to compromise the maintenance case. It is stated that the matter was compromised outside the court by agreement stating therein that all pending cases will be withdrawn and no any claim on her behalf in future. After compromise in Complaint Case No. 179 of 1996 and after receiving of Rs. one lac fifty thousand the petitioner is living separately. It was stated in the compromise petition that she would not claim on her behalf in future.

4. It has been contended on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 that at this stage cognizance has been taken upon the version of the complainant as well as after the version of the witnesses and there is no infirmity in the order of cognizance. It is stated that at this stage the case has to be viewed from the complainant point of view and whatever the complainant places on record has to be taken into consideration in a complaint case in order to arrive at the finding regarding the cognizance.

5. Learned court below after a reasoned order found that the case under Sec. 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made prima facie there is no infirmity in the order. However, the pleas aforesaid may be considered before charge. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.