IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49216 of 2007 DR.SIDDHARTH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 03 26.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2. The petitioner, who is stated to be the husband, filed a complaint case against his wife, Opposite Party No.2, in which cognizance was taken under Sections 323, 324, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Another complaint case was filed by Opposite Party No.2 against the petitioner subsequently under Sections 498A, 307, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is also stated to have filed a Matrimonial Petition No. 45 of 2003 for divorce. In the complaint case filed by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2007 interfering with the order of cognizance on his complaint was erroneous and the order dated 24.8.2007 was fit to be set aside. - 2 - He relied upon the injury report of the petitioner placed on record at Annexure-4 of the consequences of the assault made on him by his wife, the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the petitioner has already been convicted in the complaint case filed by her. That the petitioner was basically venting his ire against the opposite party no.2 for having obtained his conviction. There is no injury report from a Government source available on the record or appended to the complaint. The petitioner is stated to be a doctor. He relies upon a private injury report from another doctor. Medical affinity is a factor to be appropriately kept in mind. The allegations are of an attempted assault with a knife when he caught hold of the hand of his wife who bit him with her teeth. Contrary to the same the medical report from a private doctor is of a knife injury not consistent with the allegation of attempted assault. The petitioner is an educated person. He is aware of the precise nature of the allegations made by him in the complaint and did not make any allegations of any actual knife injury sustained. The relationship between the parties has been severely strained on account of the petitioner’s - 3 - conviction. He has also a divorce case. This Court finds no error in the revisional order warranting interference. There is no merit in this application. The same is dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)