IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.44472 of 2008 1. KARU SAO SON OF SHREE LALA SAO 2. SAVITA DEVI WIFE OF SHREE KARU SAO 3. LALA SAO SON OF LATE BANSI SAO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MADPUR, P.S. KHUDAGANJ, DISTRICT NALANDA. 4. SUNITA DEVI WIFE OF SHREE BHOLA SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARAT, Police Station NAWADA (TOWN), DISTRICT- NAWADA. . . . . PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANO. ----------- 2/ 11.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 01.09.2008 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, in Complaint case no. 233 C of 2006, whereby he dismissed the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while rejecting the petition for discharge, learned Magistrate did not take into account that Matrimonial case no. 75 of 2006 was filed by the husband of the complainant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right. A copy of the Matrimonial case has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this petition. Learned counsel further submits that in fact the complainant was married with Uday Chand Sao @ Gore Lal in the year 1992. Uday Chand Sao @ Gore Lal happens to be the son of petitioner no-1. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner no.-4 is the married Nanad and she does not have any concern with the day to day activity of the complainant’s life. Counsel for the State submits that there are materials on - 2 - record to proceed against the accused persons. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to quash the impugned order, rejecting the discharge petition, so far as petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, and this application is dismissed against them. So far as petitioner no.-4, the married Nanad is concerned, liberty is granted to her to approach the court below once again by filing petition that no case under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. would be made against her. In case, if petitioner no.-4 files an application for discharge, the same would be heard and dispose of on its own merit. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)