IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53212 of 2007 1. PURUSHOTTAM SHARMA @ PURUSHOTTAM SINGH, SON OF LATE AMBIKA SHARMA 2. LALITA DEVI, WIFE OF PURUSHOOTAM SHARMA 3. MOSTT. MANJU DEVI, WIFE OF LATE ARUN SHARMA 4. RENU DEVI, DAUGHTER OF PURUSHOTTAM SHARMA ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – CHOTAKI BABHANPURA, P.S. GHOSHI, DISTT. JEHANABAD. --------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MEENA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF SRI BENGALI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINDHAWA, P.S. KINJAR, DISTT. JEHANABAD. ------- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3. 23/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners who are parents-in-law, the widowed sister-in-law and the married sister-in-law of the Complainant, have sought quashing of the order dated 9.10.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad, in Trial No. 427 of 2007 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 354 of 2002) by which he has rejected the petition filed under Section 245 Cr. P.C. and ordered framing of charge. The case of the Complainant is that she had filed a case against her in-laws numbered as Ghosi P.S. Case No. 110 of 1997 for offences under Sections 498A I.P.C. which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad. On 24.5.2002, the court was of the view that the parties should attempt to compromise the matter. At this, they meet on 26.5.2002 at a temple where the accused persons told her that they had got her husband remarried and were not ready to keep - 2 - her. At this the Complainant fainted, so the father persuaded the husband to keep her who refused to do so. The matter escalated and the accused persons are said to have abused the complainant, so she filed the present complaint. Upon this complaint, the court concerned took cognizance under Section 498A and 494 Indian Penal Code. This Court by an order dated 11.2.2009, noticed the opposite party No. 2 who has appeared before this Court. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that no offence whatsoever is made out against the present petitioners from the facts of the complaint itself. The counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that a clear case under Section 498A and 494 I.P.C. is made out on the facts of the complaint, and, therefore, the application is fit to be dismissed. This Court on going through the Complaint, finds that the allegations contained therein do not make out any offence whatsoever much less punishable under Sections 498A and 494 Indian Penal Code. In the result, the application is allowed and the order dated 9.10.2007 passed by Sri Ved Prakash Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad, in Trial No. 427 of 2007 arising out of Complaint Case No. 354 of 2002 is set aside. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)