IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29243 of 2009 Rajendra Prasad & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar ------ For the petitioners: Mr Ram Vishun Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr M. N. Jha, Add. P.P. ------- 02 27.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners, while invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court vested under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, have prayed for quashing the FIR of Nautan P.S. Case no.189/2005 registered under sections 384, 504 of the IPC and 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act. Annexure 1 to this petition reveals that originally, one Gopal Prasad filed a complaint case bearing Complaint case no. 142C/2005 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran against the petitioners. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the aforesaid complaint petition to Nautan police station for institution of the FIR and investigation and after that Nautan P.S. Case no.189/2005 was registered against the petitioners. It would appear from the FIR that marriage of petitioner no.2 was settled with the niece of the informant of the aforesaid Nautan P.S. Case no.189/2005 but later on, petitioners demanded dowry for performance of the aforesaid marriage and when their demand was not fulfilled, they refused to solemnize the aforesaid marriage and also took the signature of the informant on a plain paper on the point of gun. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners - 2 - is that marriage of petitioner no.2 was never settled with the niece of the informant of Nautan P.S. Case no.189/2005 and, as a matter of fact, informant of the aforesaid case has brought the above stated Nautan P.S. Case no.189/2005 with intention to harass and tarnish the image of the petitioners. It is further contended by him that the above stated prosecution comes under the ambit of malicious prosecution. So this court should exercise his power vested under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The content of the first information report reveals that there is specific allegation of demanding dowry for solemnization of marriage and there is nothing on record to show this fact that the informant of Nautan P.S. Case no.189/2005 has brought the aforesaid case with mala fide intention . In my view, it would not be proper to quash the FIR at the threshold. The stand of the petitioners would be considered at the time of trial. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is dismissed on the admission stage itself. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)