IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43762 of 2007 LEELA DEVI Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Vijay Prasad ----------- 3. 06.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for Opposite party no. 2. The petitioner questions the order of cognizance dated 26.6.2007 in Patna Rail P.S. Case No. 87 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate Railways at Patna under Sections 353/504 of the Penal Code. The petitioner and Opposite party no. 2 are stated to be the husband and wife. The allegations are that the petitioner with others entered into the booking office and all of them abused and assaulted Opposite party no. 2 and while departing threatened to have him killed. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the relationship between the husband and wife is estranged leading to an earlier proceeding under Section 498 A of the Penal Code by the petitioner against Opposite party no. 2 including a divorce case by Opposite party no. 2 in which orders for maintenance has also been passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The estranged relationship between them is admitted in the first information report itself. Counsel for Opposite party no. 2 urged that the allegations are specific of the petitioner having entered into the 2 office premises, abused the opposite party no. 2 and even assaulted him. The peculiarity of the allegations compels this Court to take note of the provisions of the Penal Code invoked i.e. Sections 353 and 504 of the Penal Code. The informant gets beaten by his own wife in his office premises but is unable to state who were the persons who accompanied her and how many persons accompanied her. He states that he was beaten up in his office in presence of his own colleagues. There is no averment about the persons present in the office premises and of the role played by them at the time that the assault was taking place. The estranged relationship between the parties has already been noticed. The Police after investigation submitted final form that the allegations were untrue and were the result of the estranged relationship between them. Though this Court did not need an authority to pronounce on the issue, however, in deference to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in II (2006) DMC 127 (Geeta Devi & ors. V. The State of Bihar & anr. ) where in similar circumstances a criminal complaint instituted by the husband against his own wife when the latter had already filed proceedings under Section 498 A of the Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. quashed the complaint as an abuse of the process of the 3 Court. This Court finds substance in the submission of the petitioner that it is highly unlikely that the petitioner who is a woman would be bold enough to enter into the booking counter in presence of large number of persons and would beat her husband without any interference from any quarter. In the circumstances, the impugned order of cognizance dated 26.6.2007 and entire proceedings in Patna Rail Police Case No. 87 of 2006 pending before the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Patna is hereby quashed as being abuse of the process of the Court. The application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)