IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38770 of 2009 1. Madhup Kumar Singh, son of Shambhu Nath Singh, 2. Uday Shankar Singh, son of Vishwanath Prasad Singh, 3. Abhay Singh, son of Vishwanath Prasad Singh, all of village Adauri, PS Purehiya, district Sheohar – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Sri Narayan Rai, son of Laxmi Rai, village Dubha, PS Darpa, district East Champaran – opp. parties. … For the petitioners : Partha Sarty, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For opp. party no.2 : Mr. Shanti Kumar and Mr. D.K. Tiwary, Advocates. … 3 19.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 11.7.2008 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul, Motihari in Darpa PS Case No. 12/2008 by which cognizance for the offences under sections 323 and 504 of the Penal Code has been taken. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that on 9.5.2008 five to six persons including the petitioners came to the village of the informant. The specific statement of the informant is that ‘IN LOGON KA SAMBANDH MERE HI GRAM MAIN HAI’. It is said that petitioner no.1 fired which did not hit anybody and thereafter petitioners 2 and 3 took away and gold chain and Rs. 12,000/- from the informant. Sri Narayan Rai, the informant is the father-in-law of Anupma Kumari and Samdhi of petitioner no.2. There is a dispute between the son of the informant and Anupma Kumari and Anupma was not living in the house of her in-laws due to the said dispute at the 2 time of the occurrence. The very fact that the informant has suppressed the fact that he is Samdhi of petitioner no.2 indicates the malafide intention which lies behind the filing of this case. Petitioner no.1 is the nephew of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no.3 is brother of petitioner no.2. The family of petitioner no.2 and his daughter did not file any case against the husband Mani Bhushan or the father-in-law in the hope and believe that the matter could be compromised between the parties and in fact a panchayati was held in the village on 25.5.2008 in which it had been agreed that the girl would return to her husband’s house and that the agreement would be binding on both the parties. In the said Panchnama the informant has stated that Anupma had left her husband’s house after fifteen days of the marriage, ‘of her own free will’ although this was not the case, but statement has been made in view of the fact that the parties wanted to settle the matter without going to the court and without any further unpleasant scenes and occurrences. It appears and it has been stated that the Panchnama was not honored and finally Anupma took recourse to aggressive measures and filed a petition before the Women’s Commission, Patna with no effect. Out of desperation finally Anupma filed Complaint Case No. 1798/2009 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for the offences under sections 498A, 323, 406/34 of the Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It may be noted that despite the fact that the informant 3 father-in-law had filed a case against his Samdhi and other family members on 10.5.2008, the petitioners acted with restraint and did not immediately file case against the husband and father-in-law and it was only on 7.7.2009 that she filed the case under section 498A of the Penal Code. Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opp. party no.2 submits that the husband is settling the matter and has approached Lok Adalat which, in my opinion, is a good step towards restoring relationship and resolving the dispute. However, this court does not appreciate the manner in which the informant has acted to abuse process of law and protect himself and his son from the consequences of their action in turning the girl out of the home. Such action and the manner in which defence has been built up cannot be appreciated in this case which is apparent from the tenure of the F.I.R. In the circumstances this court quashes the order taking cognizance, dated 11.7.2008 on the ground that the case has been instituted by abusing the process of law and with malafide intention. This application is, thus, allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)