IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26527 of 2009 1. ARUN KUMAR @ Bullu son of late Jogendra Singh, 2. Pinku Devi @ Pintu Devi wife of Arun Kumar Singh @ Ballu Both resident of village-Sauri Chhotaki, p.s. Jalalpur, District- Saran(Chapra) at present residng at Singhaula, p.s. Sirpur District-Ayawatmal(Maharastra) Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Gauri wife Dhirendra Singh, resident of village-Khudraon, p.s. Darihat, District-Rohtas. ----------- 2 31.08.2010 It has been submitted that the petitioners who are married sister-in-law (Nanadosi) seek quashing of the order dated 16.6.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-V ,Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr.Rev. No. 110 of 2008 as well as the order of the S.D.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram in G.R. No. 1262 of 2005 in Tr. No. 2128 of 2008 by which the prayer of the petitioners for discharge from the present case has been rejected. The case of the prosecution is that the opposite party No.2 was married to the brother of petitioner No.2 in the year 2005 whereafter she went away to live with him in Jharkhand but unfortunately due to non-fulfillment of dues for dowry she was tortured. The submission of the learned counsel for 2 the petitioners is that the petitioner No.2 was married to the petitioner No.1 in the year 1994 i.e. much before the marriage of the opposite party No.2 with the brother of petitioner No.2 and ever since then they are residing at Maharastra where petitioner No.1 is working and therefore there is no question of their participating in the occurrence as alleged by the opposite party No.2 and from the facts of the case it appears that they have been made an accused only on account of malice . The further submission is that from the narrative of the First Information Report also there is just and vague allegation without any specific and therefore they were entitled for discharge. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that in fact the brother of petitioner No.2 had filed a case for divorce on 22.9.2005 and this first Information Report has been filed for ulterior purposes. The opposite party No.2 disputes the factual position but is unable to refute that the petitioners were married much before the marriage of the opposite party No.2 had been solemnized with the brother of petitioner No.2. Considering the entire background of the 3 case as also that the First Information Report is totally rambling in nature without any specific and it is not in dispute that the petitioners were living separately, this application is allowed and the orders dated 16.6.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-V, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr.Rev. No. 110 of 2008 as well as the order of the S.D.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram in G.R. No. 1262 of 2005 in Tr. No. 2128 of 2008 are set aside, in so far as it concerns the petitoners. Bibhash ( Anjana Prakash, J.)