IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27927 of 2009 1. RAMASHRAY JHA, SON OF SURESH JHA 2. JITENDRA NARAYAN JHA, SON OF RAMASHRAY JHA BOTH RESIDENTS OF SHEOKHARA (BARAUNI) DINDAYAL ROAD, P.S. PHULBARIYA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEEPSHIKHA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF ASHOK KUMAR JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MATIHARI, P.S. MATIHARI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. --- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 16.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court has not applied its own mind and not even considered the points raised on behalf of the petitioners put forth for the purposes of pressing his discharge application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the wife of the petitioner had left him much earlier and was not at all ready to live with him. The petitioner thereafter filed a divorce and notice was issued to the wife. On learning that divorce case has been filed the present complaint case under Section 498A has been filed as an after thought in order to create evidence in the divorce case. It is submitted that this motive is quite obvious as when the wife learnt that a divorce case has been filed on behalf of the husband. In my opinion, this fact ought to be considered by the Court while rendering judgment in this matter because it is an important aspect of the case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. I do not think that it would be proper to interfere with 2 the order dated 17.6.2009, passed by the S.D.J.M., Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 617C of 2005. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)