IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12034 of 2006 1. MAHESHWAR MAHTO, S/o Late Panchanand Mahto 2. PREM LATA, W/o Maheshwar Mahto 3. BINDESHWAR MAHTO, S/o late Panchanand Mahto 4. PHULGORI DEVI, W/o Bineshwar Mahto 5. DULARI DEVI, W/o Late Buddeb Mahto 6. SITARAM MAHTO, S/o Late Buddeb Mahto. All resident of village – Dholbajja, P.S. Dandkhora, District – Katihar. ….. Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJWATI DEVI @ RAJWA, D/o Ram Chandra Uraon, resident of village – Mongra, P.S. Muffasil (Katihar), District – Katihar. …. Opp. Parties. For the petitioners : - Sri P.K. Jaipuriyar, Advocate Sri Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocate For O.P. No. 1 : - APP For O.P. No. 2 : - Sri Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 05/ 20.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned APP for the State. In the very narration in the complaint case it is an admitted position that O.P. No. 2 is alleged to be the second wife and in that view of the mater, the basic allegation and the order taking cognizance under Section 498A of the IPC seems to be misplaced as has been urged by the learned counsel representing the petitioners. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits from the complaint that one Maheshwar Mahto (petitioner no. 1) had married O.P. No. 2 and had given her the legal right of a wife so then he should be prosecuted for the offence alleged against him. The law being what it is, this Court has difficulty in accepting the submission of O.P. that for the so called omission and commission the petitioners should be prosecuted under Section 498A of the IPC. The petitioners have made out a case of quashing. - 2 - This application is allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 4.8.2004 passed by Sri S.Rajak, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No. C.A. 2244 of 2003 is hereby quashed. DKS/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)