IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.29975 of 2007 1. Laljee Prasad, s/o Late Ramsewak Prasad, 2. Sonu Kumar, s/o Late Laljee Prasad both residents of Mainpura, Near Devi Asthan, P.S. Danapur, district Patna 3. Chaturgun Prasad, s/o Late Ramsewak Prasad, At present residing at East India Company Colony, Dharu Heda, Rewadi, P.S. Rewadi, district Rewadi, Haryana 4. Ashok Kumar, s/o Late Bhola Prasad Guar, residing At village Nargada, P.S. Krishnagarh, district Bhojpur .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Kameshwar Prasad, s/o Sukhdeo Prasad Guar, Resident of village Laxmanpur, P.S. Ara Sadar, District Bhojpur .. Opposite Parties **** /4/ 06.11.2008 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. In spite of proper notice, opposite party no. 2 has not chosen to appear. 3. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order, dated 30.11.2005, passed in Complaint Case No. 1519 C of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 2 Ara, whereby cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The grounds on which petitioners have sought for quashing of the impugned order is that the criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners for malicious reasons and continuation of such proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 4. The facts of the case is that petitioner no. 1, Laljee Prasad, is the father of the complainant, Sushma Devi, who is the complainant of Complaint Case No. 580 C of 2002. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4, namely, Sonu Kumar, Chaturgun Prasad and Ashok Kumar, are the witnesses in Complaint Case No. 580 C of 2002, which has been instituted for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was instituted by the complainant, Sushma Devi, against her husband, Lal Babu Prasad, Sukhdeo Prasad and other family members. Counsel for the petitioners submits that since cognizance has been taken against the accused persons of Complaint Case No. 580 C of 2002 and their prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected twice by the High Court, in 3 order to put pressure on the complainant and the witnesses, the present complaint case, bearing Complaint Case No. 1519 C of 2005, was filed by one of the accused of Complaint Case No. 580 C of 2002, Kameshwar Prasad, making false allegation of assault against all the accused persons. It has also been stated that statement made in the complaint case itself indicates that the occurrence took place in the Court premises, but, thereafter, the complainant went to the police Station which is at a considerable distance and, again, he came back, got drafted the complaint petition and filed on the same date. All these things seem to be concocted. In fact, no such occurrence has taken place on the alleged date and time, but, for malicious reasons, the present complaint case was filed as the petitioners, who are the father and other family members of Sushma Devi, who is contesting the matrimonial case against the complainant and other family members. 5. Considering the fact that matrimonial case is being contested in between the parties and also that the ground which has been taken by the petitioners that it is a malicious prosecution, continuation of such proceeding will certainly amount to be an abuse of the process of the Court. 4 6. In the facts and circumstances, the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1519 C of 2005 as well as the impugned order, dated 30.11.2005, passed in the complaint case is hereby quashed. 7. This application is allowed. S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )