IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42214 of 2007 1. ABDUL QUADIR SON OF LATE ZAHUR QURAISHI 2. JAHAN ARA WIFE OF ABDUL QUADIR BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- SHAHGANJ, P.S.- SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA 3. NILOFER JAHAN @ NILAM JAHAN W/O MD. ABID, R/O QURAISHI MOHALLA, P.S.- AURANGABAD TOWN, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD, BIHAR, PRESENTLY, RESIDED AT SHAHGAJ, SULTANGANJ, PATNA Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ZARINA KHATOON W/O LATE HAKIM QURAISHI, R/O QURAISHI MOHALLA, P.S. AURANGABAD TOWN, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD ----------- 5 23/042010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the Sate. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Aurangaba in Complaint Case No. 624 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Complaint Case No. 624 of 2006 was filed by the opposite party no. 2 Jarina Khatoon in which she has alleged that the petitioner no. 1 and 2 are her Samdhi and Samdhin and petitioner no. 3 is her younger daughter-in-law. Petitioner no. 3 is an unorthodox lady belonging from a conservative background. The petitioners believed in the philosophy of witch craft. 2 Whenever the child fall ill then it was alleged that he has been subjected by the evil eye namely, by the Dain and for that treatment was being arranged through the Tantrik. One child has fallen ill. He was not treated by the doctor rather treatment was given by Ojha and they stated that the child was unwell due to shadow of a witch. Allegation is that the petitioner No. 3 broke the lock of the box and on protest the petitioners went and caught the hair of the complainant and assaulted her by fist and slaps. When the complainant’s grand daughter tried to save her then petitioner no. 1 also assaulted her with slaps. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier a case was filed on 13.6.2006 vide Complaint Case No. 466 ( C ) of 2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner no. 3 against her inlaws including the opposite party no. 2 in which cognizance was taken after inquiry and the present case was lodged thereafter so that the petitioners may be compelled to succumb to the wishes of other side. The aforesaid case lodged under Section 498 A IPC was compromised and the husband of the petitioner no. 3 was admitted to anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of undertaking given by the husband of the petitioner no. 3 and 3 thereafter, the matter was resolved and they are living peacefully. Later on the present case was filed. Further submission is that the present case is apparently a false case because a daughter-in-law has been alleged to have committed theft from the house. A daughter-in-law is never the tress-passer of the house rather she is a family member of the house and absurdity of the complaint is apparent from the fact that such allegation has been levelled against a daughter-in-law of the house. In this background the entire complaint is absurd. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that prima facie case is made out so the cognizance order is correct. Case can always be quashed if there are some apparent facts available on the record which can be perceived by a prudent person. In this case allegation has been levelled by a mother-in-law that her daughter- in-law has committed theft. Such allegations are absurd and this tendency cannot be allowed to prevail. Another fact is that prior to the present case a complaint case was filed under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code which shows that the present case is a fall out of the earlier case. 4 Considering the aforesaid discussions, it is apparent that no offence at all is made out. In the result, the order taking cognizance dated 29.3.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 624 of 2006 against the petitioners is quashed and this application is allowed. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)