IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.25771 OF 2009 RATNESH KUMAR DUTT VERMA, SON OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA E-3, SADHNAPURI, POLICE STATION GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RASHMI KIRAN, WIFE OF RATNESH KUMAR DUTT VERMA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT A/89, A.G. COLONY, POLICE STATION SHASTRINAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA ********* 9 15/09/2010 This application has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report of Shastrinagar Police Station Case No. 336 of 2007, arising out of a complaint case, registered on 29.11.2007. The allegations in the complaint petition are, that after six days of the marriage, when the complainant/informant went for honeymoon, her husband assaulted her and made a demand of dowry. Later on, a well drafted complaint petition was filed, wherein the entire family members have been made accused allocating different roles to different members of the family. The end result of the allegations is basically that there was a demand of 25 lacs and a car. It has also been alleged that the complaint got pregnant after her marriage, and she was forced to abort the baby. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 12.10.2007. The complainant had received notice of the divorce suit on - 2 - 13.11.2007 and filing of the complaint is the result of the divorce suit filed by the petitioner, thereby meaning that the complaint was filed in retaliation to the divorce suit. The arguments have been made on behalf of the petitioner to show the weakness and the fallacies of the complaint and allegations made in the complaint petition. It has also been stated that the complainant/informant has separately filed a complaint case against other family members of the petitioner after the present cases which also discloses the intention of the informant/ complainant. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/informant submits that the court should not intervene in the matter at the initial stage when the First Information Report has been instituted and the matter is under investigation. I agree with this basic principle. This Court however would like to record that in fact both the parties in the marriage are educated persons, the complainant/ informant is presently a research scholar in the College and the petitioner is the Deputy Commandant, Works Engineering in the Military Engineering Service, presently posted at Calcutta. This Court had the occasion to hear both the parties. The petitioner offered to maintain his wife in a separate flat but was not ready to live with his - 3 - wife as according to him, there was mental incompatibility between them, whereas the Opposite Party also appears to be a charming lady, was unable to convince her husband that she would try to adjust to his way of living. Both were suspicious of each other. Perhaps, in the times to come, they may agree to live together or separate amicably. In any event of the matter, this Court could not persuade both of them to resolve their differences. Be that as it may, it would not be proper for this Court at this stage to interfere by quashing the First Information Report. This application is accordingly dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his second anticipatory bail application is pending before this Court vide Criminal Misc. No. 30313 of 2009. The order dated 29.08.2009 shall continue till the disposal of the second anticipatory bail application. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)