IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.614 of 2006 1. PRAMOD SHARMA SON OF RUDH MALL SHARMA 2. SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA SON OF RUDH MALL SHARMA. 3. ASHA DEVI WIFE OF PRAMOD SHARMA 4. BHAGWATI DEVI ALL RESIDENTS OF THAKURBARI GALI, MARWARI BAZAR, P.S.- TOWN (SAMASTIPUR), DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THESTATE OF BIHAR 2. SUDHA DEVI @ MUNNI, D/O- LATE BANWARI MAHRAJ, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-GULSOWARA, P.S.- NAGAR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. For the petitioners : Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 8 26.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.2006 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Darbhanga in Tr. No. 2195 of 2006. By this order, application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) filed on behalf of the petitioners has been considered and rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned order on different counts. It is contended that the marriage in question had taken place on 18.6.1999. According to the F.I.R., the informant (wife of petitioner no. 2) had left the matrimonial home in the year 2000. He was residing at her naihar. Petitioner no. 2 (husband) filed an application seeking divorce on 23.3.2000 Notice in the said suit was ultimately published in the newspaper on 18.6.2003. This prompted the wife to lodge the F.I.R. with concocted allegations. It is further submitted that the informant appeared in the aforesaid suit seeking divorce on 3.9.2002 by filing Vakalatnama and thereafter 2 abandoned the case. Consequently, on 21.12.2002, a decree of divorce was passed by the learned Family Court, Samastipur. On these submissions, it is stated that the order impugned may be interfered with. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is supposed to confine itself to the materials available on record and to satisfy itself therefrom regarding presence of sufficient materials on record or not justifying proceeding further with the trial. On a perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the learned Magistrate has referred to several materials reflecting from the police papers and thus has come to a conclusion that there is sufficient material justifying framing of charge. In my view, no fault can be found in the impugned order. Petitioners shall have adequate opportunity to place all these fact on record during trial and make submissions thereon. The application is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )