IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.39294 OF 2008 SMT.ARCHANA MISHRA, WIFE OF SHRI SUBHAS CHANDRA JHA, DAUGHTER OF SHRI KAPILESHWAR MISHRA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA LALIAHI (KATIHAR), MANIHARI ROAD, POLICE STATION KATIHAR, SAHAYAK, DISTRICT KATIHAR ………………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AMRENDRA PANDEY, SON OF SHRI MAHAVIR PANDEY 3. SMT. DHARMSHILA DEVI, WIFE OF AMRENDRA PANDEY 4. ANJANI KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF AMRENDRA PANDEY 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF A/C QUARTER NO. 18 GOT PARA, KATIHAR, NEAR SOUTH CABIN, POLICE STATION KATIHAR, SAHAYAK, DISTRICT KATIHAR ………………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 2 25/07/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is the complainant and Opposite Party No. 2, 3 and 4 are the maternal uncle, maternal aunty and maternal brother of the husband of the complainant. The main allegation in the complaint petition is that there was a demand on behalf of the husband of the complainant for land and other articles by way of dowry. There is no allegation that there was a demand by the Opposite Parties 2 to 4. It is a vague allegation that they too also contributed and encouraged the husband. Prima facie, it would appear that in fact the Opposite Parties 2 to 4 are no way involved in making the demand or subsequent acts. 2 On perusal of the complaint petition, it would appear that the complainant was basically hurt and dissatisfied by her husband for more than one reasons. These Opposite Parties have no role to play in the said scenario. I, therefore, find that the orders impugned are justified and there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the orders impugned by which the Court has rejected the application to summon these petitioners. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)