IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29755 of 2009 Akbari Khatoon, W/O-Mumtazuddin and daughter of Abdul Wahab, resident of village-Sadisopur, P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna ……..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Md. Mumtazuddin, S/O-Late Md. Aziz @ Bhaglu Khan, R/O-Village-Kande, P.S.-Chandauti, District-Gaya ……….Opposite Parties ----------- 04 02.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 on the point of admission. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against cognizance order dated 24.06.2008 along with entire subsequent proceedings based thereon passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1359 of 2004 corresponding to Trial No. 189 of 2009 by which and whereunder he took the cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 447, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to issue summons against petitioner and others. The brief fact of the case is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Md. Mumtazuddin filed Complaint Case No. 1359 of 2004 against petitioner and three others alleging therein that the petitioner was kicked out by her husband and after that she started living with Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Md. Mumtazuddin as a guest in need of shelter and after sometime Opposite Party No. 2 namely, Md. Mumtazuddin solemnized marriage with petitioner but when Opposite Party No. 2 came to know about the character of petitioner he ousted her from his house and after that a Panchayati was held in which 2 Opposite Party No. 2 gave divorce to petitioner and a deed of divorce was prepared but on 29.10.2004 petitioner along with other accused came at rented house of Opposite Party No. 2 with an intent to take possession of the above stated deed of divorce and assaulted the Opposite Party No. 2 and also snatched his belongings. Opposite Party No. 2 made her appearance in this case without waiting for the notice and subsequently, both the parties were heard on the point of admission. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is legally wedded wife of Opposite Party No. 2 and, as a matter of fact, she has filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 3132 (C) of 2004 against the Opposite Party No. 2 for the offences under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also contended by him that after marriage, the petitioner was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the Opposite Party No. 2 on account of non-fulfilment of illegal demand and the petitioner has filed Complaint Case No. 1359 of 2004 with a view to create defence in the above stated Complaint Case No. 3132 (C) of 2004. It is also contended by him that Opposite Party No. 2 had filed Complaint Case No. 884 of 2005 against the petitioner and her other natal people and in the aforesaid case, cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 379,147, 504 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code was taken but the petitioner and other accused challenged the above stated cognizance order before this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 44464 of 2006 and this Court clearly observed in order dated 3 20.05.2009 passed in above stated Cr. Misc. No. 44464 of 2006 that the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) had filed the above stated Complaint Case No. 884 of 2005 with mala fide intention to settle his personal vendetta and this Court quashed the cognizance order dated 29.07.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 884 of 2005. It is further contended by him that Opposite Party No. 2 got filed another case in the name of his son against the petitioner and the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid case before this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 26225 of 2009 and the said criminal miscellaneous case is still pending before this Court. It is further contended by him that the present case is nothing but only abuse of process of the law. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order after conducting proper enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, there is no scope for this Court to interfere into the matter. It is an admitted position that petitioner is legally wedded wife of Opposite Party No. 2 and she has filed complaint case against her husband for the offences under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act and furthermore, it is an admitted position that Opposite Party No. 2 had filed Complaint Case No. 884 of 2005 against the petitioner and cognizance of the said complaint case was quashed by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44464 of 2006 and in the aforesaid quashing order this Court clearly observed that the above 4 stated complaint case was nothing but only abuse of process of the law. In State of Punjab and Haryana vs. Bhajanlal (A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court Page 604), the Apex Court of this country has given certain guidelines for exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Although, it is true that neither it is possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule or guidelines which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction but as stated above, the Apex Court of this country has demarcated broad outlines for exercising the power of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. It is settled principle that where the criminal proceeding is instituted with a mala fide intention or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to settle the score due to personal grudge, the High Court can interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, Opposite Party No. 2 is resident of District-Gaya and according to complaint case, the alleged occurrence took place in District-Gaya whereas petitioner is resident of District- Patna. It is hard to believe that petitioner along with other accused persons of this case, who are none else than brothers of the petitioner, would go to the house of the Opposite Party No. 2 to commit the alleged crime after traveling long distance. Moreover, the aforesaid aspect has already been considered by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 44464 of 2006. It appears to me that the present complaint case has 5 been brought by the Opposite Party No. 2 to settle his vengeance with the petitioner because admittedly, a complaint case for the offences under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act has been filed by the petitioner against Opposite Party No. 2 and, therefore, in my opinion, the present complaint case is nothing but only an abuse of process of the law. On the basis of above stated discussions, I am of the opinion that the continuation of the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1359 of 2004 would cause miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.06.2008 along with entire subsequent proceedings of the above stated complaint case pending in the court of Sri Rajesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya is, hereby, quashed in respect of petitioner only. In the aforesaid manner, this petition stands disposed of on admission stage itself. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)