IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40680 of 2009 1. SULEKHA DEVI, WIFE OF SANJAY KUMAR AND DAUGHTER OF MAHENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KUMHRAR, P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. 2. MAHENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE BAIKUNTH SINGH 3. USHA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI MAHENDRA PRASAD 4. RAJEEV KUMAR @ MANTU, SON OF SRI MAHENDRA PRASAD 5. SONI @ SAVITA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SRI MAHENDRA PRASAD. 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BANWARIGALI TOLA, P.S. KHAJEKALA, DISTRICT PATNA. ------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SMT. KABITA DEVI, WIFE OF SANDEEP @ BITTU, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BANBARI TOLA, SADAR GALI, P.S. KHAJEKALA, DISTRICT PATNA. ------- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 22.2.2010 Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City in Complaint Case No. 651 of 2002. In this case charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 494, 120, 109/34 and 120/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code would not lie against the relatives of the second wife such as the brother and sister of the second wife. It is submitted that the Court below has framed charges without considering this aspect of the matter. The question of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable to all persons in the family rather only to those persons who were responsible for the second marriage. - 2 - In any event the order dated 29.10.2009 is quashed, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City in Complaint Case No. 651 of 2002, Trial No. 599 of 2009 as far as it relates to petitioner no. 1 and 4 i.e. Sulekha Devi and Rajeev Kumar @ Mantu. The Court below is directed to re-consider whether charges can be framed in the light of what has been noticed above. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )