IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.206 of 2009 1. AKHILESHWAR PRASAD VERMA 2. ROHINI DEVI …PETITIONES Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRIMATI SUMAN DEVI, WIFE OF AKHILESHWAR PRASAD VERMA …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :Mr. Om Prakash Upadhyay & :Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyaya For o.p.no.2 :Mr.Vijay Kumar & :Mr.Kumar Pathak For the State :Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 2. 28.09.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioners challenge the order dated 02.12.2008, passed by learned SDJM, Buxar in T.R.No.1008/08 (Suman Devi vs. Akhileshwar Prasad), whereby their application filed under section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge has been considered and rejected on the ground that there is/are sufficient evidence on record implicating the petitioners in the crime justifying framing of charge(s). Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned order on the ground that the present complaint was filed on 27.03.2004. Prior to this, a suit was filed seeking divorce by petitioner no.1 which was decreed in the year 2002. If that be so, then present allegation constituting offence(s) punishable under sections 498A and 494 cannot be said to be justified. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other 2 hand, submits that during the pendency of this application charges were framed and trial commenced in which two witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the prosecution. It is also contended that the complainant filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce which was allowed by the competent court. Be that as it may, since the trial has already commenced in which witnesses have already been examined, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The petitioners shall have adequate opportunity to bring to the notice of learned trial court all the relevant facts and support them by evidence which shall be considered in accordance with law. The application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )