IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA NO.87 OF 2008 GUDDI DEVI, WIFE OF JITENDRA PRAJAPATI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJA BIGAHA, POLICE STATION RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT AURANGABAD VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JITENDRA PRAJAPATI, SON OF KRISHNA PRAJAPATI 3. KUNTI DEVI, WIFE OF KRISHNA PRAJAPATI 4. KRISHNA PRAJAPATI, SON OF LATE VISHNU PRAJAPATI 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GURAU TOLA BARA, POLICE STATION GURARU, DISTRICT GAYA *********** 7 20/05/2009 This application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2006 by which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad has found that no case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the Opposite Parties. On going through the judgment and order, I find that the witnesses have stated that there was no demand of dowry and except the complainant and her father, none of the witnesses have supported this aspect. Infact, the Court has found that there were several attempts to compromise the matter between the parties. A panchayati was also held at the local level, however, nothing came out of it and the parties refused to enter into compromise. At paragraph 8, the Court has observed that both of them are too proud to compromise the case. Therefore, 2 the Court has virtually found that the problem lies elsewhere and it is not a case of harassment or torture of the complainant. After considering the evidence, the Trial Court has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. I find that there is no anomaly in the judgment and order of the Trial Court and the reasoning are not perverse. Accordingly, this SLA is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )