IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.31569 OF 2008 1. SANJAY SINGH, SON OF NARESH SINGH 2. NARESH SINGH, SON OF LATE HARI SINGH 3. SHAILA DEVI, WIFE OF NARESH SINGH 4. RINKU KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF NARESH SINGH 5. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF NARESH SINGH 6. AJIT KUMAR, SON OF NARESH SINGH 7. SANJU DEVI, WIFE OF SANJAY SINGH ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE URASA, POLICE STSATION HASUA, DISTRICT NAWADA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANANDI SINGH, SON OF KRISHNANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ASMA, POLICE STATION PAKARIWARAWA, DISTRICT NAWADA ********* 2 28/06/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2008 by which the Sessions Judge, Nawada has affirmed the order dated 28.03.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 14 of 2006 by which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawada has taken cognizance for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The background of the case is that a First Information Report was instituted. On investigation, it was found that the case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was not true. The Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final form but subsequently, cognizance was 2 taken on the basis of the protest petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is completely untrue. The deceased lady was married as far back as in the year 1987 with petitioner no. 1 and they have been living as husband and wife without any problem. The present case has been filed just to harass the husband and other family members who are well placed in life and to extract money out of them. Learned Counsel further submits that Annexure-2 series and the voters list is sufficient to indicate that the marriage takes place in the year 1987 and as such, it does not fall within the purview of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the allegation under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are very misplaced as the marriage is about 16 years old. All these aspects of the matter cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all these points at the appropriate stage of the case. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)