ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, in Complaint Case No. 487 of 2012, whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. 3. The compliant petition has been brought on record, which shows that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and there is allegation against him and his family members to have subjected the complainant to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. It is stated in the complaint petition that for subjecting the complainant to cruelty and torture, the complainant had earlier filed a Complaint Case No. 368 of 2003, in which, the accused persons compromised the case with the complainant on the condition that she will be kept in her matrimonial home with all dignity, but when the said Complaint Case No. 368 of 2003 ended in acquittal of the accused persons, the accused persons again subjected her to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that according to one of the terms of the compromise, the petitioner had executed one sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of immovable property, but the same was also said to be forged. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed in the Court below. 4. It appears that from the impugned order that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and the documents, i.e., the certified copy of the compromise petition in Complaint Case No. 368 of 2003, the affidavit of the petitioner in the said complaint case and other documents were also produced in the enquiry stage, on the basis of which, the Court below took cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons, including the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 18.7.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and in teeth of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as for the same offence, earlier a complaint case was filed by the complainant, which ended in acquittal of the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and in teeth of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as for the same offence, earlier a complaint case was filed by the complainant, which ended in acquittal of the accused persons. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the second complaint is not at all maintainable. It is also submitted that the complainant has remarried and the petitioner had also executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have opposed the prayer submitting that this complaint relates to fresh cause of action after the disposal of earlier Complaint Case No. 368 of 2003 and there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.7.2012 taking cognizance against the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that the present complaint has been lodged for the fresh cause of action after the disposal of earlier complaint filed by the complainant, which according to the complaint petition, ended in acquittal of the accused persons in view of the compromise between the parties, but after disposal of the earlier complaint, the compromise was not acted upon by the accused persons and she was again subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. The present complaint has been filed for fresh cause of action and this complaint case is not hit by Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has remarried and the petitioner has also executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant, are the questions of facts which are to be proved by the petitioner during the trial of the case. 8. In the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 18.7.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 9. 8. In the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 18.7.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 9. Since the matter is very old one, the Court below is directed to expedite the trial. Let this order be communicated to the Court cornered through FAX forthwith.