IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36198 of 2008 1) Sami Prasad Chaurasiya, 2) Rutho Devi, wife of Sami Prasad Chaurasiya, 3) Om Nath Chaurasiya, son of Sami Chaurasiya @ Sami Pd. Chaurasiya, All of village Goyalkira Bazar, PS Goyalkira, Dist. West Singhbhum, Jharkhand – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Sanju Devi, daughter of Ganauri Pd., wife of Om Nath chaurasiya, Gayalkira Bazar, PS Gayalkira, Dist. West Singhbhum, at present village Lemuabad English, PS Pandarak, District Patna – Opp. Parties. 17.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 16.5.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 531C/2007 by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna by which cognizsance has been taken for the offences under sections 498A and 323 of the Penal Code. The facts of the case are that petitioner no.3 married the complainant on 7.5.1998. They lived together as husband and wife for a short period of time. Thereafter, the husband-petitioner no. 3 learnt that the complainant was earlier married to one Ramdeo Chaurasiya. On learning this fact the complainant was sent back to her home. A matrimonial suit was instituted by the petitioner and he was granted decree of divorce on 16.7.2003. In the divorce proceeding the complainant appeared couple of times and thereafter abandoned the suit. A complaint case No. 188C/2002 was filed by the complainant against her husband and in-laws alleging therein that there was a demand of dowry and that she was being tortured by her husband and the in-laws. The order passed in Complaint Case No. 188C/2002 was challenged by petitioner no.3 by filing Cr. Misc. No. 410/2004. The 2 court while considering the facts of the complaint case as well as the fact that the petitioner had a decree of divorce, quashed the proceeding on 18.4.2006. The case of the complainant is that even after the decree of divorce, petitioner no.3 and the complainant began to live together and after the criminal case was quashed by this court, petitioners repeated the demand and threw her out of the house. A compromise petition which indicates that the parties are ready to live together has been annexed to this petition. The documents which has been produced by the complainant to show that there was a compromise, was not and could not have been filed in any court as the marriage between the parties has been held to be a nullity. The circumstances surrounding the said compromise are that the said document was prepared when petitioner no.3 was incarceration in Complaint Case No.188C/2002. Subsequently when he was released on bail and after decree of divorce, it cannot be held that the said compromise was actually effective. The present case has been filed making almost same allegation as made in the earlier complaint case. In the circumstances aforesaid this court finds that the petitioner cannot be relegated to face the trial. Clearly the filing of the second complaint case is nothing, but misuse of process of law. In the circumstances the impugned order is quashed and this application is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)