JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner through Video Conferincing assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah and Mr. Rishav Kumar from the Court room, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.01.2020 passed in Cr. Revision No.469 of 2019, whereby, the learned Revisional Court has been pleased to affirm the order taking cognizance dated 01.10.2018 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.1587 of 2017, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant-opposite party no.2 married to accused no.1 Puja Kumari on 12.06.2012 as per Hindu customs. After two-three months of the marriage, everything was normal in their matrimonial relationship. Later on, she changed and often indulged in quarrel with the complainant. She used to threaten him by saying that her Mama is a Police Inspector and another one is an Advocate. It was further alleged that she will lodge a false dowry related case against him and his family and such estranged relation continued. They have a daughter out of the said wedlock, namely, Jagriti. She took her daughter and went to her parental home. The complainant tried to get their matrimonial relation normal. It was also alleged that in September, 2016, she lodged a false case of dowry harassment against the complainant and his parents in Ara, Bihar. A mediation sitting was held in Ara, Bihar on 20.09.2016, wherein, it was admitted by the accused no.1 and her family that no dowry was demanded. It was alleged that on 25.01.2017 at about 02:30 p.m., when the complainant was in his rented accommodation at Morhabadi, the accused no.2-petitioner came and started assaulting him. He caught hold of the complainant and took him in police jeep to Bariyatu Police Station. It was further alleged that the accused no.2 took away Rs.10,000/-from the house of the complainant. The complainant was detained in Station Hazat of Bariyatu Police Station and got an agreement executed on a sheet of paper wherein it agreed that the complainant shall pay Rs.7,500/-per month to the accused no.1. The complainant was let to go at 08:30 p.m. It was alleged that the accused nos. 1 and 2 have consistently been harassing the complainant both mentally and physically. The complainant was let to go at 08:30 p.m. It was alleged that the accused nos. 1 and 2 have consistently been harassing the complainant both mentally and physically. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that in the solemn affirmation as well as deposition of enquiry witnesses, nothing specific has come about any assault or injury upon the complainant and in view of that, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , reported in 2023 SCC OnLineSC 1711. He refers paragraph 10 of the said judgment. On the same line, he further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. Sate of Uttar Pradesh and another , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC. He refers paragraph 21 of the said judgment. He further submits that so far as Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, that Section is also not attracted as there is no wrongful restraint by the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that the learned Revisional Court has erred in not quashing the order taking cognizance and in view of that, the said order and the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the wife of opposite party no.2. He submits that the petitioner is behind the matrimonial dispute, who happened to be maternal uncle of Puja Kumari, who is wife of opposite party no.2. According to him, on the inducement of the petitioner, Puja Kumari has filed Mahila P.S. Case at Ara, Bihar in the year 2016, in which, opposite party no.2 has received notice and bond was executed and the case was compromised. He further submits that opposite party no.2, namely, Vivek Kumar filed an application dated 27.01.2017 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi indicated the allegation which is subject matter of the present complaint case, contained in Annexure-5 of the counter affidavit. He further submits that opposite party no.2, namely, Vivek Kumar filed an application dated 27.01.2017 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi indicated the allegation which is subject matter of the present complaint case, contained in Annexure-5 of the counter affidavit. He submits that the petitioner has filed informatory petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in the year 2015 and 2016 informing apprehension of falsely implication of opposite party no.2 in criminal case. Puja Kumari, who is the wife, lodged further FIR being Ara Nagar P.S. Case No.80/2020 for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against opposite party no.2 and his family members, which was investigated by the police and only opposite party no.2 was chargesheeted in that case and others have been acquitted. He also submits that opposite party no.2 was granted anticipatory bail in that case in Cr. Misc. No.23760 of 2021, which was allowed with direction to the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.15,000/-as interim maintenance to Puja Kumari. He submits that opposite party no.2 is paying the said amount. He further submits that Puja Kumari has filed another case against opposite party no.2 and other family members under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015, contained in Annexure-9 of the counter affidavit. Puja Kumari further filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Being Maintenance Case No.45/2022. He submits that out of wedlock, they have been blessed with baby child who is residing along with mother and her study is also jeopardised as no care has been taken by mother in spite of monthly maintenance being paid by opposite party no.2. He submits that all these have happened on the instigation of this petitioner, who happened to be maternal uncle of Puja Kumari. The petitioner is posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID at Dhurwa, Ranchi. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed and the orders passed by the learned Revisional Court as well as the Trial Court are in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation is there and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed and the orders passed by the learned Revisional Court as well as the Trial Court are in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation is there and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. In paragraph 3 of the complaint petition, the allegations are made that whenever certain utterance took place between the husband and wife, the threatening was given by the wife that her maternal uncle is a Police Inspector and life of opposite party no.2 will be made difficult and he will be implicated in false case. In paragraph 20 of the complaint petition, the allegations are made that the petitioner, who happened to be in police force, has forcefully taken opposite party no.2 to the police station and he was kept confined in the police station. It has been further disclosed that the location of the petitioner may be obtained of that day from the CDR of mobile of opposite party no.2. In paragraph 22 of the complaint case, it has been stated that the said incident was reported to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and that is fortified in view of Annexure-5, which has been brought on record by way of filing counter affidavit. Thus, it appears that the incident took place on the alleged date was brought in the knowledge of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, however, the complaint case was filed later on i.e. 10.04.2017. 8. The learned Trial Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, which was challenged before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court vide order dated 03.01.2020 has been pleased to dismiss the Cr. Revision No.469 of 2019. The learned Revisional Court has also taken note of the solemn affirmation particularly para 6, wherein, he has found that the petitioner was employed as Inspector in CID, Ranchi and police personnel of Bariatu Police Station came to the house of opposite party no.2-complainant and when the complainant opened the door, they assaulted and abused him and took him to Bariatu Police Station and kept him there for four hours. Thus, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, who happened to be a police official. Thus, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, who happened to be a police official. In absence of any legal document, he has got no authority to take the opposite party no.2 to the police station. 9. In the case relied by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Abhishek Saxena (supra), the matter was investigated by the police and charge-sheet was submitted and in view of that, that fact has come that injury is not there. The present case is arising out of a complaint case and even when the same was intimated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, in spite of that, no action has been taken. Prima facie, it appears that it happened due to employment of the petitioner in the police force. The case relied by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner in RameshChandraVaishya(supra) is also arising out of the charge-sheet and these facts were not there in those cases. In view of that, these two judgments relied by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner are not helping the petitioner, so far as quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is concerned. 10. Prima facie the case in the aforesaid background, is made so far as Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 11. Further, there is no illegality in the revisional order and if injustice is not done, in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. second revision is not maintainable. 12. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, I am not inclined to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order passed by the learned Revisional Court dated 03.01.2020 in Cr. Revision No.469 of 2019. 13. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 14. However, the trial will proceed in accordance with law without prejudiced to this order as this order has been passed only considering parameter of Section 482 Cr.P.C.