IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5363 of 2008 1. RANDHIR KUMAR YADAV @ RANDHIR KUMAR. S/o Prakash Yadav 2. Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, S/o Prakash Yadav 3. Niranjan Kumar Yadav, S/o Prakash Yadav 4. Prakash Yadav, S/o late Brahmdeo @ Barmu Yadav 5. Bimla Devi, W/o Prakash Yadav. 6. Rinku Devi, W/o Vishwajeet Yadav, 7. Vishwajeet Yadav, S/o Ganga Yadav @ Aajoo Yadav Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shashi Bhushan Yadav @ Bhushan Yadav, S/o late Chaturi Mahto ----------- 2/ 23.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. A complaint regarding marriage of Anita Kumari with Randhir Kumar Yadav followed by demand of dowry and torture for its non-fulfillment was reported to the C.J.M., Munger which was sent to the concerned Police Station for the F.I.R. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the son of petitioner no. 4 was kidnapped and on behalf of the informant for the offence under Section 498A, a case was reported and F.I.R. was also lodged. Both the cases continued. In the meantime, a matrimonial case was filed on behalf of petitioner no.1 for declaring the marriage, if any, with the Anita Kumari null and void in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger. Anita Kumari appeared and contested. Both the parties adduced evidence and after hearing the parties, the marriage was declared null and void, otherwise also marriage of Anita with petitioner no.1 was not a result of natural conduct of an arranged marriage, rather love affairs is asserted. Negotiations for the marriage demand of dowry followed by refusal by all the family members save and except Randhir Kumar. Thereafter, 2 negotiation of Randhir Kumar for the marriage and according to the prosecution case, marriage solemnized even in absence of rest of the family members then only the above allegation regarding demand and torture for its non-fulfillment is made. But there can be no doubt to accept the petitioners’ case that after declaration of the marriage null and void, there can be no case under Section 498A and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act followed by any section under I.P.C. which was following the main offence of Section 498A. Thus, I find no justification to leave the prosecution to continue. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Munger and the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Munger and the entire proceedings in Criminal Revision no. 273 in connection with G.R. No. 554 of 2006 arising out of Kashim Bazar P.S. Case no. 64 of 2006 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Munger are quashed. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)