CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.12132 OF 2004 (Against the order dated 31.1.2003 passed by Sri R.L. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Katihar in Complaint case No.1713 of 2001) 1. RAJ RANA @ LALJEE BHAGAT @ LAL JEE SON OF LATE BINDESHWARI BHAGAT 2. SMT. PARMESHWARI DEVI D/O LATE BINDESHWARI BHAGAT 3. RAJ KISHORE BHAGAT S/O LATE BINDESHWARI BHAGAT 4. YUGAL KISHORE BHAGAT S/O LATE BINDESHWARI BHAGAT 5. CHATURBHUJ BHAGAT S/O LATE BINDESHWARI BHAGAT, ALL RESIDENT OF SINGHEWAR ASTHAN, P.S. SINGHESHWAR, DIST. MADHEPURA ----------- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. RITA DEVI W/O RAJ RANA @ LALJEE BHAGAT, D/O SRI SARJUG PRASAD BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDPUR, P.S. KADWA, DIST. KATIHAR -------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sharan, Advocate Mr. A.K. Sharan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P. For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Advocate --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash,J : The matter was admitted on 27.1.2006, whereafter the parties by an order dated 8.7.2010 were required to explore the possibility of patching up the matter. Today the Counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that even though subsequently divorce has been granted and the opposite party no.2 has also been granted 2 maintenance by the Family Court, in the facts of the case she wants to pursue that matter. On going through the complaint, I find that with regard to the petitioner nos.2 to 5, no offence whatsoever is made out against them much less u/s.498A I.P.C. In view of such, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Katihar in Complaint case No.1713 of 2001 is quashed with regard to the petitioner nos.2 to 5. With regard to petitioner no.1, the application is permitted to be withdrawn to raise all these points at the stage of charge. Patna High Court Dated, 24th September,2010. Narendra/NAFR ( Anjana Prakash, J.)