IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33624 of 2007 1. MAHABIR MAHTO , S/o late Ramphal Mahto 2. Ram Pari Devi, W/o Mahabir Mahto Both R/o of village Chakwa, P.S. Khodawandpur, District Begusarai. 3. Sanju Devi, D/o Mahabir Mahto, W/o Ranjan Mahto, R/o of village Basahi, P.S. Cheria Bariarpur, district – Begusari … Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Parwati Devi, D/o Ladulal Mahto, R/o Tara, P.S. Khodawandpur, District Begusarai. … Opp. Parties. ----------- 4 14.11.2008 Heard Mr. K.N.Choubey, Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State. Although the complainant – O.P. No. 2 was duly served with notice for the reasons best known to her she has chosen not to contest this application. According to the complainant, Parwati Devi impleaded as O.P. No. 2 herein, her marriage with accused Birju Kumar was solemnized on 10.5.1998 whereat gold, silver apart from costly articles was presented to the complainant by her parents. But subsequently after she had entered into the matrimonial home, all the accused persons allegedly started pressurizing her to bring a further sum of Rs. fifty thousand and a Hero Honda motorcycle from her father. This led to filing of a complaint case by the complainant under section 498A I.P.C. which was eventually compromised and good relations and cordiality was restored between the husband and the complainant. However, on 1.1.2004 the accused persons - 2 - again allegedly demanded Rs. one lac, and for non payment thereof she was subjected to torture and cruelty and attempts were made by the mother – in – law (petitioner no. 2) to set her on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil on her body. However, she was rescued by the timely entrance of her father who arrived and raised hulla. The further allegation is that the accused persons threatened to kill her and also took away forcibly Rs. 80,000/-. However, at the inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. the complainant had a different story to narrate, wherein she specifically stated that Sanju Devi, her nanad, had been married much earlier and was residing at her own matrimonial home. So far as the parents – in - law are concerned she stated that both of them had exceeded the age of 60 years and were very much advanced in age and as a matter of fact it was they who provided her with food and clothes. Apparently their appears great discriminatory statements between the complaint petition and her statement on S.A. and in that situation the statement on S.A. having more weight in the eye of law should be accepted as the correct position. Since she in her statement on S.A. has specifically exonerated Sanju Devi, the nanad, and the parents – in – law, who are petitioner no. 3 and 1, 2 respectively herein continuation of the criminal proceedings as against them would - 3 - clearly be an abuse of the process of the Court and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly the impugned order so far as the petitioners are concerned is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)