IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28794 of 2009 SANJAY KUMAR, SON OF SRI CHHEDI SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PIRI BAZAR, PS PIRI BAZAR IN THE DISTRICT OF LAKHISARAI. PRESENTLY POSTED AS DEPUTY MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST OF GANDHI MAIDAN, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA.--- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF SRI SITARAM SAO. RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NAYATOLA MADHOPUR, BAKHTIARPUR, P.S. BAKHTIARPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. 3. BABITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF RAJENDRA PRASAD, RESIDING AT NAYATOLA, MADHOPUR, BAKHTIARPUR, P.S. BAKHTIARPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. --- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State :- Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 :- Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Biresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ----------- 3 18.2.2010 This application has been filed against the order dated 27th of May, 2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Barh in Cr. Revision No. 531 of 2008 and order dated 17th of June, 2008, passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh in Complaint Case No. 138(C) of 2003. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order refusing to discharge him for offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the allegations are general and omnibus, as far as the family members are concerned, however against the husband and mother-in-law, there is specific allegation that the husband demanded dowry and that he was having extra marital affair with another lady. The case was instituted in the year 2003 after marriage of the complainant with Ajay Kumar Sah in the year 2001. This petitioner got an employment in the State Bank of India as a 2 Probationary Officer and was posted in Chennai in October, 2001. In between the date of marriage and the date of filing of the complaint, it is obvious that the petitioner was not living with the complainant and her husband and as such it has been submitted that in fact the allegations levelled in the complaint petition and the evidence that has come on record, do not specifically show that the petitioner was involved in the said torture or demand of dowry. On the basis of general and vague allegations that there was a demand of dowry by all family members, it cannot be said that the petitioner had in fact been involved in the demand of dowry, which when demanded after marriage, is only for the benefit of the husband. There being no direct allegations against the petitioner, I do not find that there is sufficient ground for proceeding in this case, as there is hardly any chance that the petitioner could be held guilty or punished for an offence of this nature. In the result, I quash the order dated 27th of May, 2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Barh in Cr. Revision No. 531 of 2008 and order dated 17th of June, 2008, passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh in Complaint Case No. 138(C) of 2003. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)