IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41932 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2014 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East Champaran ======================================================

Nirmala Devi @ Nirmala Pandey W/o Late Suryadeo Pandey, D/o Brahamdeo Pandey Resident of Village -Pakridayal P.S- Pakridayal, Distt- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate Mr. Kishore Saurabh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Asha Devi, APP For the Informant : Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Mr.Hemant Ray, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

5 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to quash the order dated 19.02.2016 passed in Trial No. 1002 of 2016 in connection with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 99 of 14 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C was rejected.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant one Sashi Shree @ Moni had stated that she was a teacher in D.P.S school and her husband, namely, Braj Kishore Prasad was employed as a loan officer in the State Bank of India. It is alleged by the informant-wife that the her husband Braj Kishore Prasad used to come to her house and subsequently had proposed for marriage with the informant before her parents and fraudulently convinced the parents of the informant. The informant states that her marriage with the aforeasaid Braj Kishore Prasad was solemnized according to the Hindu traditions, however the informant later came to know that her marriage was an inter caste marriage. The informant thereafter states that she decided to continue living with her husband at Motihari and subsequently she also became pregnant. The Informant thereafter alleges that she got information that whenever she went to her paternal home, her husband used to come along with another lady and later started living with her in the same house, however when the informant inquired about the said lady, it is alleged that, her husband said that she was his sister-Nirmala Pandey, the present petitioner. The informant alleges that her husband was having illicit relations with the petitioner and also with another lady who was living in Patna. The informant also states that the husband had compromised a criminal case wherein allegations of establishing sexual relations on the pretext of marriage was leveled against him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not the relative of the main accused and still she has been prosecuted under Section 498A of the I.P.C.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that she is neither married wife of Braj Kishore nor any relative of her husband moreover there was no act of commission or omission to bring the petitioner in ambit of case u/s 498A as well as other sections and that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the husband of the informant. The husband of the informant being a loan officer in S.B.I, assured the petitioner to grant loan and he called petitioner at home in presence of the informant to examine the required document for granting the loan to the petitioner.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner went at the home of Braj Kishore Prasad only when the informant was present at home and that the husband of the informant should not have called any customer at home, despite knowing that presence of a female customer at home was unpleasing to the informant. He next submits that the informant herself is not consistent and fair in making allegations against the petitioner as she alleged in the later part of the F.I.R. that her husband used to bring several women in the house in her absence