IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46392 of 2007 SUDHA KUMARI WIFE OF SHANKER SARAN, R/O VILL. BHADSARI, P.S. KAKO, DIST. JEHANABAD, DAUGHTER OF AMARNATH PATHAK AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA UNTA MADARPUR, P.S. JEHANABAD, DIST. JEHANABAD. ----- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. YOGENDRA PATHAK 3. SUSHILA DEVI W/O YOGENDRA PATHAK 4. CHOTI @ GURIYA D/O YOGENDRA PATHAK ( OPP. PARTY NOS 2 TO 4 ARE R/OVILL. BHADSARI, P.S. KAKO, DIST. JEHANABAD) ----- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 06. 19.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. The petitioner, who is informant of Jehanabad P.S. Case no. 143 of 2007, has approached this court and raises a grievance with regard to the order dated 13-08-2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)-II, Jehanabad in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2007(S.J.)/24 of 2007(F.T.C.)-II. Petitioner filed a written statement before the officer- in-charge, Jehanabad P.S., alleging therein that she was ill-treated for want of dowry in the matrimonial home. She made certain allegations against her husband and other family members, including the father-in-law, mother-in-law and ‘Nanad’. The matter was investigated. On conclusion of investigation, police found the allegations true only in respect of the husband of the petitioner as well as the father of the alleged second wife of Shankar Sharan, husband of the informant. It appears that an 2 application in the shape of protest was already filed and was on record. On receipt of the final form the learned Magistrate vide order dated 08.06.2007, took cognizance of the case. Processes were thus directed to be issued only against the two accused persons sent up for trial. Aggrieved by the said order the informant filed the aforesaid revision application. The learned Revisional Court negated the submission of the informant/petitioner that it was mandatory on the part of the Court to hear the informant in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been observed therein that the cognizance is taken of offence and is not directed against any person. The Revisional Court has observed, and rightly so, that the informant shall have opportunity to raise issues at appropriate time before the learned trial Court. This Court observes that the petitioner shall have liberty to lead evidence and if the evidence on record implicate other accused persons, the trial Court is equipped with the provision of law to summon them to face the trial. The impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court would require no interference. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)