IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39150 of 2007 1. MOST MEERA DEVI @ SUBHASH KUWER WIFE OF LATE DHRU NARAYAN PATEL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA LASKARIGANJ BANDH, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS. 2. BIKRAM PATEL SON OF DHRU NARAYAN PATEL 3. OM PRAKASH PATEL @ MATHURI 4. DHIRAJ KUMAR PATEL BOTH SONS OF LATE DHRU NARAYAN PATEL. ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BADAKI KARPURWA, P.S. SASARAM (N), DISTRICT ROHTAS. AT PRESENT + ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SAGARPER (ALAMGANJ MORE) P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS. 5. RAM BALI PRASAD SON OF LATE BAL GOBIND PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA LASKARIGANJ BANDH, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS. AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KEDARPUR, P.S. BELAGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RUBI DEVI WIFE OF RAVI PATEL 3. RAVI PATEL SON OF LATE DHRU NARAYAN PATEL. BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BADAKI KARPURWA, P.S. SASARAM(N), DISTRICT ROHTAS., AT PRESENT ADDRESS:- C/O MASMAT GUDIYA DEVI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PURVI MOHAN BIGHA, P.S. DIHARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 11. 22.11.2010. Heard Shri Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The present petition has been filed for quashing of an order dated 18.7.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in Complaint Case No.125 of 2004. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. I have perused the complaint petition as well as the impugned order. Learned counsel for the 2 petitioners, while challenging the impugned order, has submitted that so far as petitioner no.5 is concerned, even in the complaint petition, it was categorically stated that he was not at all related to the in-laws family of the complainant and as such no proceeding can be initiated against petitioner no.5 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to number of documents enclosed with the present petition to show that the present petition was filed maliciously. I have perused the impugned order and the materials on record. So far as deciding the present case, it is not advisable for this Court to examine the documents, which have been brought on record by the petitioners at this stage. Those materials are required to be examined by the concerned court at appropriate stage. So far as petitioner no.5 is concerned, since the complainant herself had admitted that petitioner no.5 was not relative of her in-laws family, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution against the petitioner no.5 may not proceed. Moreover, in the complaint petition, no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner no.5, who was arrayed as Accused No.6 in the complaint petition. 3 N.H./ Accordingly, so far as petitioner no.5 is concerned, order of cognizance is set aside. In respect of other accused persons, the court is of the opinion that other petitioners have not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent power in their favour. Accordingly, the petition in respect of petitioner nos.1 to 4 stands rejected. It is made clear that this order may not prejudice the court below at any subsequent stage. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)