IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37987 of 2008 1. Surrendra Nath Jha, S/o Late Bhola Nath Jha. 2. Gautam nath Jha, S/o Surendra Nath Jha. Both resident of Mohalla- Sabour (Choti Hat), P.S. Sabour, District- Bhagalpur. 3. Shashi Jha son of late Uma Nath Jha, resident of village- Dumar, P.S. Falka, District- Katihar. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Amhadi Khatoon @ Meena Kumari wife of Sk. Assiruddin, resident of village- Sankatra, P.S. Balia Belon, District- Katihar. ----------- 04 19.07.2011 This application has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 01.06.2007 by which the S.D.J.M., Katihar has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 196 of 2006. The prosecution case is that the complainant says that she was in love with petitioner no.1 and she decided to marry with petitioner no.1 at Gorakh Nath Mandir 15 years prior to the lodging of the complaint petition. She said that after her marriage in the Gorakh Nath Mandir, they started living together as husband and wife. She further alleges that petitioner no.1 ousted her from his house on the ground that he wanted to sell her entire property etc. and give him a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. The undisputed facts in this case are that the petitioner no.1 retired from Government service in the year 1996. At the time when the so called complaint was lodged he would be about 68 years of age. The whole story of marriage between Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioner no.1 seems to be absurd and unbelievable. Both belong to different religion, and if any marriage was to take place, then it is required that they should be 2 some witnesses to the marriage. It appears absolutely unbelievable that she should make the son of petitioner no.1 and the sister-in-law of petitioner no.1 party in the complaint case. The allegation, that they too had joint hands of petitioner no.1 and forced out her from the house for dowry seems absurd. The factum of marriage appears to be doubtful and in fact learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be a case, where both the parties may have been living together, but it cannot be a case under Section 498A of the I.P.C. i.e. the case in which it is presumed that there was a demand for dowry. This Court finds the entire case is unbelievable and as such quashes the order of cognizance dated 01.06.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 196 of 2006. This application is allowed. Md. Ibrarul ( Sheema Ali Khan,J.)