IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.12852 of 2007 ***** Shashikant Sah @ Batoran Sah, Son of Late Rameshwar Sah, resident of village- Bangalla, Police Station-Dharhara, District-Munger. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Baby Devi, W/o Shashikant Sah @ Batoran Sah, Son of Late Rameshwar Sah, resident of village- Bangalwa, Police Station-Dharhara, District-Munger. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate Mr. N.K.Jamuar, Advocate For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For opposite party no.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, Advocate ------------ 6. 6.5.2009. Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 12.12.2006 by virtue of which learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai has rejected the prayer of discharge of the petitioner against whom earlier Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 303 of 2002 has been lodged. Informant was married with the present petitioner on 30.5.2001 thereafter it is alleged that the accused persons including this petitioner indulged in certain acts which amounted to cruelty under Section 498-A as well as violation of Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this was marriage which went haywire soon thereafter and this compelled the petitioner to file a divorce case before the Court of Principal Judge, Munger, which was registered as Title Suit No.15/03. Notices had been issued to the defendants, who appeared, filed the written statement but thereafter choose not to contest the matter. This is reflected from the final - 2 - judgment which has come to be rendered in the matter on 19th April, 2007 and has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reason for filing the present prosecution or the F.I.R. would be reflected from the background to the order passed in the divorce case. He submits that in that background and keeping in view the fact that the relationship stands finally dissolved and the said judgment has not been challenged before the next superior Court, the continuance of prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. He submits that in the interest of justice the criminal proceeding against him should be brought to an end. Learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2 appears but does not contest some of the basic facts which have been noticed in the earlier part of this order. His contention is that the case came to be filed and the matter was investigated and the offence as such was made out. The Court, in matters of criminal proceeding especially initiated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has to look into the totality of the facts and circumstances moreso because abuse of Section 498-A has become prevalent and the Courts have had the occasion to take note of the same on many an occasions and several judgments and decisions which have come to be rendered. In that view of the above and taking the background of lodging of the case and the case of divorce which stands granted in favour of the petitioner, the Court is inclined to quash the proceeding against this - 3 - petitioner in relation to Lakhisarai P.S. Case No.303 of 2002 as well as the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 by virtue of which the learned Court below has rejected the prayer for discharge. The application stands allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)