IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19221 OF 2003. In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ 1. Biplaw Kumar Saha, son of Sri Sita Ram Prasad, R/o Birpur, P.S. Birpur, District- Supaul, at present residing. C/o Sri Permanand Rai, Battukeshwar Dutta Path, P.S.Jakkanpur, District-Patna 2. Sita Ram Prasad Son of Late Mahabir Prasad 3. Domni Devi @ Savitri Devi W/o Sri Sita Ram Prasad, Both resident of village-Birpur, P.S.Birpur, District-Supaul….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mrs.Mamta Kumari (Suman) @ Mr. Mamta Kumari, D/o Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Suman, resident of Kayastha Tola, P.S.Saharsa, District- Saharsa. -------- Opp. Parties. For the petitioners :Mrs. Arpana Kumari For the opposite party :Mr. Amarnath Gupta For the State :APP -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Jyoti Saran,J. Heard Mrs. Arpana Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Amarnath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.10.2001 passed by 2 the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.1406 (C)of 2001, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner no.1 is the husband of the complainant and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are his parents. The substance of allegation as set out in the complaint was that the complainant had married the petitioner no.1 on 14.10.1999 in a simple ceremony. It is alleged that in the said marriage, the complainant’s parents had made huge expenses. It is further alleged that subsequently, for want of certain more dowry, the accused persons who are petitioners herein, did not take steps for the Bidai of the complainant giving rise to the complaint case in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners while denying the allegations, with reference to an order dated 17.7.2004 passed in Matrimonial Case No.177 of 2000 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, submits that the Family Court, upon examination of the evidence 3 and the deposition of the witnesses, has been pleased to declare the marriage between petitioner no.1 and the complainant opposite party no.2 as a nullity considering the circumstances that the complainant opposite party no.2 at the time of marriage with the petitioner no.1, was already married to one Jitendra Kumar and who was yet alive. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that it is in these circumstances that the petitioner no.1 did not take steps for the Bidai of the complainant and which action of the petitioner no.1 having agitated the complainant opposite party no.2 has given rise to the complaint case in question on concocted grounds making baseless allegations. It is submitted that the allegation of dowry is also completely mis-placed in absence of any materials supporting the said allegation. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 very fairly accepts the position emanating from the order passed by the Family Court in Matrimonial Case No.177 of 2000. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order taking cognizance against these petitioners and 4 the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court. I am in complete agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel. Considering the order passed by the Family Court in Matrimonial Case No.177 of 2000 declaring the marriage between petitioner no.1 and the complainant opposite party no.2 as a nullity, no case is made out under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and as a consequence thereof no case for prosecution under the Dowry Prohibition Act is either made out against them. In the circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioners either for offences punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or for offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act in absence of any evidence supporting the allegation of demand of dowry, can not be sustained and the continuation thereof would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Regard being had to the circumstances, the order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2001 passed in Complaint Case No.1406 (C) of 2001 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna and 5 the entire criminal prosecution initiated pursuant thereto, is quashed and set aside. This application is allowed. (Jyoti Saran,J.) Patna High Court Dated, 13th December,2010, NAFR/ ahk.