IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.20807 of 2009 1. Gopal Prasad son of Mahabir Sao @ Beera Sao, 2. Mahabir Sao son of late Ramdhani Sao, 3. Kunti Devi wife of Mahabir Sao & 4. Naresh Sao son of Mahabir Sao All resident of village-Gondi, P.S.-Paraiya, District- Gaya …Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar & 2. Radha Devi wife of Gopal Prasad, resident of village-Gondi, P.S.- Paraiya, District- Gaya presently residing at Mohalla- Tel Bigha Rajendra Path, P.O.- New Godown, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Gaya …Opposite Parties ----------- 3/ 11.07.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners have sought quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Complaint Case No.1658 of 2008, by which cognizance has been taken under sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.. The background facts of the case is that opposite party no.2 was married with the petitioner no.1 in 1993 and it was alleged that dowry was demanded and when the same was not fulfilled, she was tortured by the accused persons. The opposite party no.2 instituted a complaint case in this regard in the year 2002 but the same was allowed to be dismissed in default on 19.10.2002. Soon thereafter, a second complaint was instituted but the parties compromised between themselves. However, evidence was led by the parties where the complainant and her witnesses categorically stated that no demand of dowry was made in the light of the compromise. The accused persons were acquitted of the charge by 2 judgment dated 23.06.2007. In the meanwhile, suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the petitioner in the year 2006, which was disposed of by order dated 19.06.2007 since the parties agreed to live together. The present complaint was instituted on 24.09.2008. On going through the complaint petition, I find that the complainant has reiterated her allegations and she also mentioned the fact of compromise had been arrived at between the parties on account of which accused were acquitted by order dated 23.06.2007. She further alleged that in the meanwhile she was appointed as Angarbari Sewika and started discharging her duties with due diligence. The accused persons then demanded rupees one lac for setting up a business for the petitioner no.4, who happens to be her brother-in-law. When she refused to fulfill the demand made by the accused persons, she was abused on 13.09.2008 and was not allowed to enter in kitchen. She left the house next day. On 20.09.2008, the accused persons again reiterated the demands and threatened her. In the background facts of the case, since the petitioners have been exonerated of the allegations that had taken place before the judgment of acquittal on 23.06.2007 albeit on compromise, this Court cannot possibly look into the allegation levelled against the accused persons before 23.06.2007 since it was the complainant’s own stand that the accused persons had not demanded any dowry. Further, the allegations made in the present complaint about demanding rupees one lac for setting up of business of petitioner no.4 is also totally vague and this does not come within the definition of dowry 3 since it is not in connection with the marriage. In view of such, entire proceeding including the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Complaint Case No.1658 of 2008, is hereby set aside. The application stands allowed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)