IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA NO.81 OF 2008 KRANTI DEVI @ REKHA DEVI, WIFE OF SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV, RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, EASTERN RAILWAY, JAMALPUR WORK SHOP, TICKET NO. 276 CRANE SOPE POST FITTER, DAUGHTER OF BISHUNDEV YADAV, RESIDENT OF MAHARANA POLICE STATION AND P.O. DHARHARA, DISTRICT MUNGER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV, RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, EASTERN RAILWAY, JAMALPUR WORK SHOP, TICKET NMO. 276 CRANE SOPE POST FITTER, SON OF SRI BHADAI YADAV, RESIDENT OF NAULAKKHA, POLICE STATION NAYA RAMNAGAR, POST OFFICE SAKIABAD, DISTRICT MUNGER ……………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 8 29/04/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. This application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Munger by which the Court acquitted Surendra Prasad Yadav, the alleged husband of one Kranti Devi @ Rekha Devi for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. By the impugned judgment, the appellate Court has reversed the findings of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger wherein the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate had found the Opposite Party No. 2 guilty 2 of the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code but had acquitted the father and mother of the Opposite Party No. 2. On perusal of the judgment of the Court below and after considering the findings of the Court, it appears that the Court has found that the case us 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has not been proved by the complainant of this case. The reason for coming to this conclusion is firstly after having been ousted from the house, the complainant filed a case after a gap of two years and the delay has not been explained and also because the case with respect to demand of dowry has not been established by the prosecution witnesses. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a finding of the Court that the complainant is not the legally wedded wife of the Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground that Opposite Party No. 2 was earlier married and his first wife is still alive. This finding has been based on the basis of the evidence led before the Trial Court. Learned Counsel submits that it conflicts with the finding of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in a proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure where the complainant has been granted maintenance by the Family Court. It is also submitted that perhaps the Opposite Party No. 2 has filed a revision against the order of maintenance. For the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner, I am only relying on the findings with respect to the allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for passing this order. I am not relying on the finding that the petitioner is not the legally married wife of the Opposite Party No. 2. There is no infirmity in the reasoning of the appellate Court and as such this SLA is dismissed. Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J. )