IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1440 of 2008 Suman Rani, D/o shiv Narayan Prasad, W/o Paritosh Prakash R/o at present Mohalla Nutan Nagar, P.S.Civl Lines, Dist. Gaya. --- petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Paritosh Prakash s/o Late Shyam Sundar Prasad, R/o house no. 3, Block no. 42, Sector-1, Pushp Vihar,Saket, New Delhi-1100017. official Address- H.R.C. (Admin) Reliance Communication, 5th floor, Vijay Building, 17, Barakhambha Road, Canaught palace, New Delhi. 3. Anil Kumar Sinha S/o Late Shyam Sundar Prasad 4. Rubi Kumari Sinha W/o Anil Kumar Sinha 5. Smt. Shail Bala Devi, W/o late Shyam Sundar Prasad. 3 to 5 are R/o C/46-officer Flat, Near Telephone Exchange, Doctors Colony, Jagjivan Bhawan, Dist. Dhanbad(Jharkhand) --- opp.parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 03 13.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the complainant. She filed complaint case no. 2764 ( C) of 2007 under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Sections 498, 406 and 420 of the Penal Code. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned Magistrate took cognizance by order dated 17.01.2008 only in respect of husband/opposite party no.2. The complainant being aggrieved by the said order preferred Cr. Rev. no. 203 of 2008 (Smt. Suman Rani vrs. The State of Bihar). Learned revisional Court considered the same and interfered with the said order which was quashed and set aside. Learned Magistrate was directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observation made in the order. Learned Sessions Judge, Patna, observed as under:- “….After going through the complaint petition it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is about his husband‟s impotent. Further something more is added but only against husband that appears also doubtful as after the marriage petitioner was taken for honeymoon, 2 remained with her husband from 25.7.2006 to 11.11.2006. Impotency of the husband came within the knowledge of the petitioner even then she purchased house hold article as motorbike, colour T. V. and Fridge in Delhi without showing any source of income. At that time petitioner was residing with the husband maintained by him. Further there is allegation regarding keeping of her ornaments in a locker but there is no paper at all. Impotency was therefor that grievance was there in that circumstances allegation as alleged against husband also other than impotency prima- facie appears improbable…..” On remand the matter was taken up. Learned Magistrate found that the allegations are precisely made against the husband who was found impotent. With regard to retention of the ornament is concerned, it has been found that the materials were grossly deficient. Considering the facts emanating from the materials brought on record in course of enquiry made under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟), it has been found that no prima facie case has been made out. Consequently, the complaint has been dismissed in terms of Section 203 of the Code. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that impugned order under challenge does not require any interference, as petitioner has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality in the said order. There is no merit in this application It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)