IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18732 of 1998 1. MOST.KISHUN DEVI WIFE OF LATE GIRIJA DWIVEDI. 2. RINA RANI @ NEHA. 3. RANI KUMARI @ REKHA, BOTH DAUGHTERS OF LATE GIRIJA DWIVEDI. 4. ARVIND KUMAR DWIVEDI SON OF LATE GIRIJA DWIVEDI. 5. MUNI DEVI @ MUNI KUMARI DAUGHTER OF BAGWAN TIWARI, ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA RAM NAGAR, NEW BENGALI TOLA, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DISTT-PATNA……………………...…PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNITA DEVI D/O SRI CHANDRIKA PANDEY R/O VILLAGE-PARSA P.S. BARH, DISTT- PATNA…………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- FOR THE PETITIONERS:- MR. UMA SHANKAR VERMA, ADV MR. BINOD KUMAR MISHRA, ADV MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, ADV. FOR THE STATE :- MR. LALA KAILASH BIHARI PD.APP. ------------- 8. 09-Apr-2010 Heard the parties. 2. This application has been filed by five accused persons for quashing the order of cognizance dated 24.01.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 485(c )/97 for offences under Sections 498A, 307, 341, 323, 324, 380 and 148 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The complainant, O.P. No.2 claims to be legally wedded wife of Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, petitioner No.4 and in that capacity she filed the aforesaid complaint petition. 3. In spite of notice nobody has appeared on 2 behalf of O.P. No.2, the complainant. 4. This quashing application was admitted long back and proceedings of the court below have remained stayed since 1998. The defence of the petitioners was that there was no marriage at all and in fact the petitioner No.4 was kidnapped by the family members and relatives of the complainant and a drama of marriage was enacted by force for which a criminal case was lodged. In that case, as appears from Annexure-3, two persons were convicted by judgment dated 21.09.1993 contained in Annexure-3. 5. Through a supplementary affidavit a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 139 of 1997 dated 15th October, 2009 has been brought on record to show that according to the Division Bench the petitioner no.4 was forcibly married without his consent and the marriage was never consummated. Accordingly, the marriage was declared void ab initio. The decree passed by the family court for restitution of conjugal rights was accordingly set aside. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and unusual delay in lodging of the complaint 3 case, it is found that the petitioners are being prosecuted male fide on a false allegation that there was marriage between the complainant and the petitioner no.4 and that there was resultant torture and demand of dowry. Hence, it is in the interest of justice that this application be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of cognizance is set aside. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)