IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53211 of 2007 1. SURYA NARAYAN SINHA, S/o Sri Chandradeo Singh. 2. Kamlawati Devi, W/o Surya Narayan Sinha. 3. Chandradeo Singh, S/o Late Ganga Dayal Singh. 4. Lalpari Devi, W/o Chandradeo Singh. All resident of Raghunath Tola Anisabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, District-Patna. ………Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Kusmanti Kumari Sinha, W/o Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Raghunath Tola, Anisabad, P.O.-Gardanibagh, Distt.-Patna At present resident of Village- Tant Pati, P.S.-Naubatpur, District-Patna. ………Opposite Parties. ----------- 03. 23.04.2010 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2006 passed by S.D.J.M. Patna in connection with Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 522 of 2004 instituted for the offences under Sections 498A, 307 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner No. 1 is the elder brother-in- law of the informant, petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are parents-in-law of the informant. The prosecution case is that the informant had married Pankaj Kumar Sinha son of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, brother of petitioner No. 1 in the year 1981 and she came to live in maternal home in 1981- 2 84. At the time of marriage dowry had been given to the in-laws despite which she was variously tortured by them. In the year 1998 she was allegedly tied and beaten by the accused persons upon which she came to her uncle’s house. She repeatedly tried to go to her in-laws but she was thrown out. She learnt that on 31.12.2002 the husband had remarried so she instituted the present case on 23.07.2004 alleging that she had been mentally and physically tortured for ends of dowry and her husband had remarried without her wishes during her lifetime. On the last date a notice was issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 by order dated 11.02.2009 and the opposite party no. 2 has appeared to oppose this application. The contention of the petitioners is that they used to live separately from the husband of the informant and the First Information Report has been instituted after an undue delay without there being any explanation for the same. The informant has herself specifically stated that she had learnt on 31.12.2002 that her husband had remarried on which she has filed the complaint only on 23.07.2004. The 3 submission is that from the facts of the case no offence under Section 498A is made out since firstly there is a sweeping vague statements against all the accused persons without specifying as to which of the accused persons had demanded dowry, harassed her or coerced her to meet the unlawful demands. The further submission is that the First Information Report has been instituted much after the period of limitation since according to her itself the last act of cruelty attempted upon her was on 21.05.1998. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 opposes the application and submits that the First Information Report was delayed on account of the fact that repeatedly efforts were being made by the parties to compromise the matter and all the accused were liable since a First Information Report was instituted against them. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that in the facts of the case no offence under Section 498A is made out since there is no circumstance to suggest that the cruelty inflicted upon the informant is to an extent that she was driven to commit suicide and there is absence of any 4 specific overt act alleged against the present accused persons that it is they who had made demands upon the complainant. Moreover, the order of cognizance is also barred by limitation since the same was taken on 26.06.2006 whereas the acts alleged were before the stipulated three years i.e. the sentence presented for offences under Section 498A. The offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is accordingly also not made out against the present petitioners since the same is against the husband of the informant who is not before this Court. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 26.06.2006 passed by S.D.J.M. Patna in connection with Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 522 of 2004 is quashed. However, the observation in the present case should not affect the case of the co- accused persons who are facing trial. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)