IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.165 of 2009 SMT. VEENA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 13.8.2010 No one appeared on behalf of the private respondents on previous date and this case was adjourned for today. Today also no one appears for the private respondents. The respondent no.5 in fact is full brother of the husband of the petitioner. Respondent nos.6 and 7 are sons of respondent no.5. The grievance of the petitioner is that ever since the appointment of her husband on compassionate ground in the year 1988 on the death of her father-in-law, the private respondents are creating trouble on one pretext or the other. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to compensate the respondent no.5 in view of the appointment of her husband in Bihar Agricultural College, Sabour, he was given 5 Kathas of land and a sum of Rs.16,000/- which was accepted by respondent no.5, as would be evident from Annexure-1 series. The respondent no.5 over the years sold his property. As he could not get a case with the fact that the petitioner’s husband got compassionate appointment, he filed a Complaint Case bearing Complaint Case No.459 of 1998 under sections 420, 465, 466, 467 of the Penal Code giving rise to Sabour P.S. Case No.124 of 1998. The police after investigation found the case to be false. Thereafter, the respondent no.5 filed a 2 KHAN protest cum complaint bearing no.1996/2000 which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by order dated 2.1.2001. A revision preferred against the aforesaid order by respondent no.5 was also dismissed. Thereafter the respondent no.5 filed a Miscellaneous Case No.16 of 1995 before the S.D.O. Bhagalpur under section 144 Cr.P.C. against the husband of the petitioner which was also rejected. The respondent no.5 once again filed Misc.Case No.04/03-04 against the husband of the petitioner regarding irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner’s husband before the Incharge Additional Collector, Bhagalpur who on enquiry from the Principal of the Bihar Agricultural College, Sabour did not find merit in the complaint. Thereafter, the respondent no.5 filed Title Suit No.53 of 2008 before the Sub Judge III, Bhagalpur which is pending for adjudication. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that respondent no.5 has filed one after another petition against the husband of the petitioner which was rejected by the respective courts. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that it would be open for the petitioner to raise her grievance by filing a representation before the respondent nos.3 and 4 that private respondents are unnecessarily harassing her family, though Title Suit is pending between them. (S.P.Singh,J)