IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17358 of 1998 1. SMT. SUMITRA DEVI W/O LATE AMBIKA PRASAD 2. ASHA SINHA, DAUGHTER OF LATE AMBIKA PRASAD, BOTH RESIDENT OF 644, SECTOR-‘F’, PEOPLE CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, P.S. KANKARBAGH, TOWN & DISTRICT- PATNA……………..PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BACHHA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE PALAK DHARI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, HARIHARPUR, P.S. DUMKA, DISTT- SITAMARHI………..OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 06. 19-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice has been served on the complainant, O.P. No.2 and his counsel’s name also appears on the daily cause list but he has not appeared to contest this quashing application. 2. On behalf of both the petitioners, it has been submitted that petitioner no.1 is mother of petitioner no.2 and she has died during the pendency of this application on 5.7.2002. 3. In respect of petitioner no.2 it has been submitted that documents have been annexed to show that she was married in the year 1971 and had children born out of the marriage prior to the date of first occurrence as alleged in the complaint petition i.e. 8.3.1976. 4. The main contention on behalf of 2 petitioners for quashing of the complaint case is to the effect that the prosecution is mala fide only to put pressure upon these two lady accused to part with their property. It was highlighted that as per complaint petition the petitioners and some others had approached the complainant and persuaded him to pay Rs. 15,000/- as advance consideration for some lands belonging to the petitioners on the plea that money was needed for performing marriage of petitioner no.2. It was further highlighted that there is no explanation for delay of 21 years and the only explanation appears to be that on 1.8.1997 the complainant requested the accused persons to complete the formalities of registration etc, but it was not done. 5. On going through the petition of complaint it is found that there is absolutely no explanation as to why the complainant remained satisfied and absolutely no action was taken by him for 21 years if he had really advanced Rs. 15,000/- by way of advanced consideration for purchasing land from petitioners. The plea for advancing the money was shown to be difficultly in the marriage of petitioner no.2 for want of money but documents show that she had 3 children from her marriage prior to 1976. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears sufficient merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the prosecution launched against them through complaint case no. 444 of 1997 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi is mala fide. The said prosecution is hereby quashed. 7. This application is allowed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)