IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.782 of 2009 1. PANDEY AJAY SHANKAR Son of Late Pandey Kunj Bihari Prasad 2. Pandey Jaishankar Prasad @ Chhotan. 3. Pandey Ramashankar. 4. Pandey Vijay Shankar @ Punnee. 2 to 4 sons of late Kunjbihari Prasad. 5. Ragini Pandey, wife of Pandey Jaishankar @ Chhotan. 6. Kushank Gaurav @ Dhunmun. 7. Aditya Gaurav @ Kunmun brothers of Pandey Jaishankar Prasad, son of Late Kunj Bihari Prasad. All resident of village Ratti Subhai, P.S. Vaishali, District Vaishali. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, Bihar. 2. Neha Devi, Daughter of Harinandan Bishwakarma, Ramsahay Lane, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna. . . . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 6/ 04.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of First Information Report of Vaishali P.S. case no. 213 of 2009, arising out of Complaint case no. 2716 of 2009 under Sections 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no case under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would be made out against them, as respondent no.2 Neha Devi is not wife of petitioner no.1. He further submits that a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code would be instituted and investigated, only if there is prima facie proof that victim is a wife. He submits that it would appear from the First Information Report that the informant earlier filed Complaint case no.287 of 2009 at Patna City, which she had abandoned on account of obvious queries made from the court in respect of her marriage. Counsel for the - 2 - petitioners has brought on record a marriage certificate of petitioner no.1 with one Dr. Shweta Gupta, dated 24.06.2009 issued under Special Marriage Act by Special Marriage Officer, Jehanabad (Annexure-1). On the aforesaid basis, he submits that petitioner no.1 is married with Dr. Shweta Gupta and not with respondent no.2. Learned counsel refers to Annexure-7, which is alleged to be a form filled up by respondent no.2 in the year, 2007, wherein the marital status shown as ‘unmarried’ against serial no.6. Learned counsel in his reply to counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 has referred to certain L.I.C. policy of the year, 2009 to show that respondent no.2 was unmarried. Counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the marriage certificate of the petitioner with one Dr. Shweta Gupta is dated 24.06.2009, much after filing of the complaint whereas she was married with petitioner no.1 on 15.12.2005 in Baba Baidyanath Mandir, Deoghar, Jharkhand. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has referred to documents of marriage granted by Deoghar temple. He submits that all the L.I.C. policies, which have been brought on record, are prior to the date of marriage of respondent no.2 on 15.12.2005, and as such the name of the petitioner no.1 cannot be there either as the husband or the nominee. He further submits that subsequently after the marriage, the petitioner no.1 has filed an affidavited petition for addition of his name. Heard the counsel for the parties. It would appear from the pleadings of the parties that the case is under investigation. - 3 - In view of claim and counter claims regarding the marriage it is not possible for me to form any conclusive opinion regarding rival claims. In the circumstances, this application is disposed of with liberty to both the parties to produce relevant documents before the Investigating officer of the case in support of their claim regarding marriage or non-marriage. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)