IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. WJC No.354 of 2001 DR. RAM NATH PRASAD, son of Late Bhola Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Nawab Bahadur Road, P.S. Khajekalan (Patna City), District-Patna. ---Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna. 5. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 6. City Superintendent of Police (Urban), Patna. 7. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patna City. 8. The Officer-in-Charge, Khajekalan Police Station, Patna City. 9. Smt. Asha Das, wife of Sri Deo Mohan Lal Das, Teacher, Zila School, Muzaffarpur. 10. Smt. Sangita Kumari, daughter of Sri Deo Mohan Lal Das, resident of Mohala-Nawab Bahadur Road, Patna City. ---Respondents ----------- 3. 7.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The prayer is for directing the official respondents to institute the case against the persons against whom the petitioner had filed an application. From the writ application it appears that the case of the petitioner is that the first marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with one Smt. Sarbmangla, which was unsuccessful and as such the petitioner divorced her. Thereafter he again married with one Sangita Kumari (respondent no.10). However, the second marriage also could not go smoothly which gave rise to filing of the divorce suit in the Family Court, Patna, vide Matrimonial Suit No.98/99. The said Sangeeta Kumari (respondent no.10) also filed a criminal case against the petitioner for the alleged offence under sections - 2 - 498A and 406/34 of the Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, vide Khajekalan Police Station Case No.208/99. In the said case, the police upon investigation submitted chargesheet vide Chargesheet No.54 of 2000 dated 22nd of May, 2000, as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit, against the accused persons, including the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that if the petitioner has any grievance against any person, he ought to have either lodged the First Information Report or if, in his opinion, no First Information Report is registered, he could have taken recourse to law as provided under the Code of Criminals Procedure. The same having not been taken, the writ application is fit to be dismissed. Considering the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of their respective pleadings, it appears that the petitioner had filed a divorce suit whereas respondent no.10 had filed the aforesaid police case and, as such, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no direction could be given, as prayed for. Moreover, the reliefs prayed for as also the averments made in the writ application are not clear and, as such, I do not find any merit in the writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)