IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.7621 OF 2008 1. DINESH DAS, SON OF BINO DAS 2. RAMESH DAS, SON OF BINO DAS 3. BINO DAS, SON OF LATE KESHWAR DAS 4. FUDAN DAS, SON OF LATE KESHWAR DAS 5. PANIA DEVI, WIFE OF BINO DAS ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GODHIYARI, POLICE STATION BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT SAHARSA ………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PUNITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF KEDAR DAS, WIFE OF DINESH DAS, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PASHUPALAN COLONEY, WARD NO. 1, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT SAHARSA ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 2 19/01/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order taking cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant’s father has signed on an EKRARNAMA in which he has stated that he is taking his daughter for treatment to her paternal home. It has been stated in the EKRARNAMA that there is no dispute with respect to payment of dowry and as such it cannot be said that the petitioners should be punished for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner no. 1 has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and 2 his wife has refused to live with him and as such this is not a case where the petitioners can be booked under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. All these aspects of the matter can be considered at the appropriate stage in the trial and the petitioners would have the liberty to bring the EKRARNAMA on record and prove the same. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)