IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.57820 of 2007 1. SANJAY @ RAGHU DIPTY, S/O RAJ KIRHORE PRASAD 2. RAJ KISHORE PRASAD SINHA, S/O LATE MUKUND SAHAY 3. MADHURI DEVI, W/O RAJ KISHORE SINHA 4. SANJEEV, S/O RAJ KISHORE PRASAD SINHA ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GHURLAK, P.O. GHARLAK, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AMAR NATH PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, S/O LATE BASUDEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LADAURA, P.S. KURBANI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT C/O SHRI MANORANJAN PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA INDRAPRASTH NAGAR, P.O. MAJHAULIA, P.S. AND DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /5/ 16.04.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This is a petition for quashing the criminal prosecution and the first information report of Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 126 of 2002 registered for offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was lodged by the informant, father of the victim. The first information report was lodged on 24.03.2002 and the date of occurrence shown to be 27.05.1997. Further, the daughter of the informant has also filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 836 of 2001 making same allegation and offence and during the period a proceeding under 2 Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and even a divorce case also filed by the parties, the husband and wife. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that a Cr. Misc. No. 8179 of 2005 heard along Cr. Misc. No. 14619 of 2007 and by order, dated 10.09.2007 the Hon’ble High Court quashed the complaint petition by which the order for taking cognizance was taken against the petitioners. The said complaint case was against petitioners with same allegation. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that though the order passed by the High Court quashing the allegation in complaint, but, police case on same fact is pending since 2002 though the parties have compromised and in terms of the compromise Rs.1,51,000/- was paid and even the cognizance has been taken on 23.01.2002 in the Complaint Case No. 836 of 2001 was quashed in view of the compromise between the parties. 4. However, the notice was issued in this case and even after receipt of the notice opposite party no. 2 has not turned up. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has earlier been compromised and on the basis of this compromise the cognizance taken in the complaint case has been quashed in view of the fact that no useful purpose is going to be served and, hence, it is contended that the first information report on the basis 3 of fardbeyan instituted in the year 2002 is still pending and neither the charge sheet has been submitted nor cognizance has been taken and the first information report lodged for offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable only for three years and, hence, the limitation for taking cognizance is only three years. However, the case instituted in the year 2002 and still under investigation and the charge sheet has not been submitted, in the meantime, the parties have compromised in the complaint case and on that basis the complaint petition quashed in view of compromise between the parties in matrimonial case as well as in proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Taking into consideration this fact that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the investigation of Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 126 of 2002 pending and it is only the misuse of the process of the Court and, hence, the first information report bearing Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 126 of 2002, dated 24.03.2002, is hereby quashed. This application is allowed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )