IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41066 of 2009 1. AJEET KUMAR 2. ANIL KUMAR, BOTH SONS OF LATE ARJUN PRASAD 3. ANJU DEVI, WIFE OF ANIL KUMAR 4. SMT. URMILA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE ARJUN PRASAD ALL RESIDENTS OF MAKHANPUR, IDGAH ROAD, GAYGHAT, P.S. ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. REKHA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF GANAURI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SALIMPUR AHRA, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3 3.5.2010 Heard the parties. Initially the complainant-opposite party filed a case 2748(C) of 2007 in which it has been alleged that the petitioner no. 1 and his family members had demanded dowry and on non-payment of dowry thrown her out of the house. Cognizance was taken on 20.12.2007 in the aforesaid complaint case only against the husband. During the pendency of the complaint case, anticipatory bail application was filed. In the anticipatory bail application, it has been recorded that the husband would separate from the rest of the family members and take a separate residence. After this was accomplished to the satisfaction of the court, the family members of Ajeet Kumar were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge on the basis of the said agreement. The husband was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 18392 of 2009 dated 22.5.2009. After grant of anticipatory bail, matters were not resolved between the parties and the present First Information Report has been instituted alleging that the brother-in-law, his wife and mother-in-law had assaulted the opposite party no. 2 namely Rekha Kumari. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rekha 2 Kumari lives just behind the Gandhi Maidan police station. It has been alleged that the occurrence took place at 12 p.m. in the after noon and the F.I.R. had been instituted at 8 p.m. It is further submitted that the medical report indicates that the doctor did not find anything wrong with the petitioner and the medicines that have been prescribed is an antibiotic such as Ciprofloxacin and Dilona, Rentac and Vitamin B. Complex along with X-ray of the chest. On perusal of the case diary, X-ray has not been produced till today. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submits that his client was assaulted by the husband and his family members and there are several witnesses to support this fact. Referring to the evidence at paragraph nos. 3, 10, 11 and 12, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 claims that the allegations in the F.I.R. are supported in totality. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand relies on paragraph nos. 3, 10, 11 and 12 of the case diary and submits that the Investigating Officer had in fact never visited the place of occurrence nor had he examined any of the witnesses and the entire diary is nothing but a piece of table work which would be apparent from the fact that while taking the statement of the mother, staff and the father of the opposite party no. 2, the husband has been described as the brother-in-law whereas the brother-in-law Anil Kumar has been described to be the husband of opposite party no. 2. It appears from the case diary that in fact either there was no details available with respect to the case or that the investigation was done carelessly so that 3 the correct facts have not been stated with respect to the relationship, which throws the case of the opposite party no. 2 in doldrums. In other words it is submitted that the investigation is not as a result of investigation rather the diary has been prepared in the police station. It appears from the entire facts in this case that the family members i.e. Anil Kumar, Anju Devi and Urmila Devi have been roped into this case out of malice and the proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court should not quash the order of cognizance and should not make comments in the manner in which the investigation is conducted. This Court cannot subscribe to such a view, in view of the fact that the Courts are not supposed to turn a blind eye with respect to the manner in which investigations take place in a case and if the matter is pointed or brought to the notice of the court, certainly the Court can consider the materials that stand out during investigation, along with other relevant facts with respect to the case. Considering the entire facts, I find that that this present case has been filed out of malice and with a purpose to harass the husband and his family members. The order taking cognizance dated 27.8.2008 is, therefore, quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)