CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No. 14149 OF 2004 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** 1. DR. RAM NATH PRASAD 2. ADITYA RAJEEV BOTH S/O LATE BHOLA PRASAD. 3. GEETA KUMARI, D/O LATE BHOLA PRASAD 4. KAUSHALYA DEVI, W/O LATE BHOLA PRASAD 5. DR. KUMUD RANJAN SINHA, S/O LATE RAMNATH PANDIT 6. MRS. KRISHNA RANI SINHA, W/O DR. KUMUD RANJAN SINHA --------------------------(Appellants) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMR. DR. ASHA DAS,W/O SRI DEO MOHAN LAL DAS -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur. Mr. Md. Imteyaz Ahmad Mr. Kumar Kaushik For the State : Murli Dhar A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 12.4.2004 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Patna City in Sessions Trial No. 905/03/Trial No. 127/03 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioners. 2. By an order dated 19.9.2005 notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and thereafter it was admitted on 18.01.2006 with a further order for stay of further proceedings in the court below. Today even though petitioner’s counsel is present and advances his arguments no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. The petitioner no. 1 happens to be a son in law of the informant and from the facts of the First Information Report it appears that the informants daughter was married to the petitioner no. 1 on 7.12.1996 but thereafter her daughter was tortured on account of which Khaj-e-kalan P.S. case no. 208/99 under Sections 498A, 406/34 was instituted against the accused persons. 4. Further narrative of the First Information Report is that she was aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner no. 1 who is a Doctor had claimed to be of 32 years but there were documents to show that the petitioner had filled in different dates of birth in some applications. 5. The further allegation was that the petitioner no. 1 was giving his bio data in the news paper for marriage and was therefore liable for prosecution under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 495 and 120-B of I.P.C. in which cognizance was taken under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 495 and 307 of I.P.C. 6. However, on going through the First Information Report, I do no see any ingredients which would justify putting the petitioners on trial for in my opinion no offence whatsoever is made out. The complaint appears to be more in the nature of venting ire against the accused persons for the failed marriage of the complainant’s daughter. 7. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Khaj-e-kalan P.S. case no.127/2000 pending before learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Patna City is hereby quashed. 8. Application stands allowed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 16th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.