IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45188 of 2007 SAWITRI DEVI, Wife of Dr. Kameshwar Prasad, Resident of Village-Kawakala, Police Station Kawakala, District Nawada. At present Daughter of Rampati Sah, Gardpar, Nawada. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Dr. Kameshwar Prasad, Son of latel Tetar Saw, Resident of Village kawakala, Police Station Kawakala, District Nawadah. At present near Tiwary Medical Hall, Village & Post Sursand, District Sitamarhi, posted Additional primary health Centre, Village & Post mahda, Police Station buxar, District Buxar. 3.Niva Devi, wife of Dr. Kameshwar Prasad, 2nd wife of Deo Nandan Prasad, Mohalla Bhati Chowk, Police Staqtion Begusrai. At present near Tiway Medical hall, Village & post Sursand, District Sitamarhi. 4.Shashi Shekhar, Son of Dr. Kameshar Prasad, near Medical Hall, Village Post Sursand, District Sitamarhi. ----------- 7 26/3/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. The long and short of this case is that on a complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant with regard to unfortunate experience shared by her in a long married life of 27 years (1973- 1999) in which she had been also blessed with two daughters, she was not being maintained by her husband in a proper and cordial manner. In this context it has been alleged that even the order directing payment of maintenance passed in her favour was not complied by her husband, opposite party no.2 and further in her life time her husband had again got married to another lady and when she after knowing this fact went to the house of her husband, 2 she was brutally assaulted by her step son and others. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that if on such clear allegation the court below had found a prima-facie case and has taken cognizance under sections 341, 379 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code it had no reason to refuse taking cognizance for the offence under section 498 A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court would not find any reason why on the aforementioned allegation the court below even after recording statement of four witnesses of the complainant before framing of charge, it has not referred to any one of them for arriving at the conclusion that there was no ingredients of offence constituting under sections 498 A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard this Court has gone into the dep osition of the complainant herself and from the same it would appear that there were materials to show that the opposite party no.2 had repeatedly tortured the petitioner by neglecting her and giving her due respect as his wife, which would be good enough to constitute offence under Section 498A I.P.C.. It is true that there is also allegation of section 307 of the I.P.C. against Shashi Shekhar, the step son, Niva Devi, second wife of the opposite party no.2 but then it would be difficult for this Court to hold that any attempt on the life of the petitioner was made so as to constitute offence u/s 307 I.P.C. In that view of the matter, this Court would only set aside the impugned order to the extent refusing framing of charge 3 by the court under sections 498A I.P.C. and it is directed that the trial of the opposite parties 2 to 4 would be conducted for the offences 341, 379, 494 and 198A I.P.C. With the aforementioned modification in the impugned order, this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)