IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.56572 OF 2007 1. MAHESH KUMAR, SON OF BHUSHAN THAKUR 2. MALTI DEVI @ KUNTI DEVI, WIFE OF BHUSHAN THAKUR 3. SHILU DEVI, DAUGHTER OF BHUSHAN THAKUR 4. RAJU KUMAR, SON OF BHUSHAN THAKUR 5. RAVI KUMAR @ BHUTU, SON OF BHUSHAN THAKUR 6. BHUSHAN THAKUR, SON OF LATE SITA RAM THAKUR ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA TAREGANA DIH, BLOCK ROAD, MASAURHI, POLICE STATION MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA ………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. REKHA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF SUKHDEO SHARMA, MOHALLA PANCHSHIL NAGAR, BARH, POLICE STATION BARH, DISTRICT PATNA …………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ******** 3 09/02/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 602 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Patna. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 20.01.2005, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi has rightly rejected the application of the complainant to add Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to the charges. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that in fact the proper time to add/alter the charges would be after the framing of the charges. Apparently, the application for discharge has already been rejected by the Court below, which is not under 2 challenge before this Court. The judgment in revision does not suffer from any illegality inasmuch as the Court has held that there is sufficient material to hold that there was a demand of dowry. I find no illegality in the order impugned. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )