IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34731 of 2008 1. BIMALA KUMARI @ BIMALA KUMARI SAH D/O BIDESHI SAH, STAFF NURSE CENTRAL HOSPITAL, JAGJEEWAN NAGAR, DHANBAD, DISTT. DHANBAD, AND RESIDING IN DOCTOR’S COLONY VIKASH NAGAR, P.S. SARAIDHELA, DISTT. DHANBAD (JHARKHAND). 2. BIDESHI SAH SON OF LATE JHAPASI SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NUTANDIH, P.S. SARAIDHELA, DISTT. DHANBAD (JHARKHAND). 3. SUDHAKAR PRASAD SON OF LATE MADAN PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PAKARI (ARRAH), P.S. ARRAH (T), DISTT. BHOJPUR ------ PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ABHAY KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF LATE LAKSHMAN PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AKORHIGOLA, P.S. AKORHIGOLA, DISTT. ROHTAS. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 26.4.2011 Heard. The petitioners have sought quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 16.7.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 850 of 2002/Tr. No. 1209 of 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sasaram (Rohtas) by which it has refused to discharge the petitioner in a case instituted under Section 406, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the Complainant is that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 came to his house and, thereafter, took his Scooter for two hours on the pretext of doing some work but they did not return on the next day. He found the Scooter in the residence of petitioner No. 2 and when he asked for return of the same, he said he would do so later on and, thereafter, 2 finally refused to return the Scooter to him. It has been submitted that the petitioner No. 1 happens to be the wife of the Opposite Party No. 2, the Complainant and she had been married with the Complainant much earlier but since she was tortured by her in-laws, a case under Sections 498, 494 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act was instituted against the Complainant on 14.6.1998. The Opposite Party No. 2 was also convicted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code by a Judgment dated 16.1.2007 and even the Appeal has been dismissed by a Judgment dated 8.5.2008. The petitioner No. 1 also filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the divorce was decreed by a Judgment dated 29.7.2003. Since the Scooter in question had been purchased by the petitioner No. 1 but had been registered in the name of the Opposite Party No. 2, it was transferred in the name of the petitioner No. 1 on 25.2.2001 and, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the Scooter and no offence whatsoever is made out against the accused persons. In the background facts of the case, I am inclined to accept that the present Complaint is an abuse of the process of the court and is fit to be set aside. In the result, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 850 of 2002/Tr. No. 1209 of 3 2005 pending before the court of Sri R.P. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sasaram (Rohtas) including the order dated 16.7.2008 is quashed. The application stands allowed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)