IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1399 of 2009 1. Shankar Lal Singh, son of Late Phagulal Singh. 2. Amarbati Devi @ Dhwari Devi, wife of Shankar Lal Singh. 3. Umesh Kumar Singh @ Umesh Kumar, son of Shankar Lal Singh. 4. Ashok Lal Singh @ Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Shankar Lal Singh. 5. Ramesh Lal Singh @ Ramesh Kumar Singh, son of Shankar Lal Singh. 6. Aruna Kumari, D/o Shankar Lal Singh. 7. Yashoda Devi, wife of Babu Dev. (All residents of village-Lohagara, P.S.-Korhobari, District- Kishanganj). 8. Kali Prasad Singh, son of Bhim Lal Singh, resident of Handi Bhita, Kashtola, P.S.-Dighalbank, District- Kishanganj). ………….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Baro Jhali, wife of Umesh Kumar Singh, resident of village-Lohagara, P.S.-Korhobari, District- Kishanganj. …..Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 21.10.2011 The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in Cr. Rev. No.531/2007 by which he has been pleased to set aside the order dated 14.09.2007 in G.R. No.875/2004 arising out of Complaint Case No. C 766/2004 and the revision application was allowed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant opposite party no.2 Baro Jhali developed love affairs with the petitioner no.3 Umesh Kumar Singh and they married 2 two months prior to filing of the complaint case. She went to her Sasural, all the petitioners demanded dowry as cash Rs.5000/-, ornaments and two Kathas of land and on denial, she was tortured and attempted to kill. Thereafter, she fled to her mother’s house. The complaint case was referred to the officer-in-charge of the police station. Thereafter, F.I.R.No.56/2004 was registered under Sections 351, 342, 323 and 498A/34 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge- sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. After taking cognizance, the case was transferred for trial. During trial, the informant-complainant filed a petition for amending/adding the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. against the accused petitioners which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 14.09.2007. The complainant-informant preferred Cr. Rev. No.531/2007 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that there is material for amending the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and as such, the order dated 14.09.2007 passed by the learned trial court has been set aside and the revision application was allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under 3 Sections 341, 342, 323, 504/34 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, the cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under those sections. The application filed by the complainant before the learned trial court had been rightly rejected by the learned trial court refusing to amend/add the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. against the petitioners. There is no material on the record for framing of charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and as such, the impugned order is illegal and is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the order passed by the learned trial court as well as the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. During the trial, 10 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the complainant and after going through the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the complainant and other witnesses have stated that the accused persons being the husband and his relatives were making demand of ornaments and other demands and when the complainant showed her father’s inability to meet the demand, she was tortured by them. It has been found that there is material for 4 amending the charge. The impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the impugned order and the other materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses during the trial. Thereafter, a petition has been filed for amending the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. also, which was illegally denied by the learned trial court and thereafter, the informant filed Cr. Rev. No.531/2007 against that order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the material on the record including the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution during the trial and has come to the finding that there is prima facie material for amending the charge. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)