IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9605 of 2009 1. SATYABHAMA DEVI, W/o Late Dinesh Prasad Yadav 2. Manisha Kumari, D/o Late Dinesh Prasad Yadav, Both resident of Village – Mayaganj, P.O.- Mayaganj, P.S. – Barari, District – Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajani Devi, D/o Pramod Kumar Yadav, R/o Village – Basudeopur, P.S. – Haweli Kharagpur, District – Munger & W/o Manoj Kumar, Resident of Ithari, P.S. – Pholi Dumar, District – Banka (At present). 3. Manoj Kumar, S/o Devendra Yadav, R/o Village – Basudeopur, P.S. – Haveli, District – Banka ….. Opposite Parties For the petitioner: Tarun Kumar Sinha For Opp. Party No. 2: Kamal Kumar Sinha For the State: Mr. Atul Chandra, A.P.P. ----------- 3 14.03.2011 The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 2.1.2009 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Munger in Complaint Case No. 528C of 2008 under Sections 498A, 494 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant has alleged that the petitioners used to visit their house and the husband of the complainant got illicit relation with the petitioner no. 2, and subsequently, performed the marriage. It appears that the present complaint was filed on 16.5.2008, whereas, the petitioner no. 1 filed Bhagalpur Kotwali (Barari) P.S. Case No. 705 of 2007 on 5.12.2007 alleging therein that the husband of the complainant and one Subhash took away the petitioner’s no. 1 daughter who is petitioner no. 2 before this court. The case came to be registered under SectionS 363, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 2 that as a retaliatory measure the present case has been lodged. It is further submitted that the victim girl (petitioner no. 2) has now married to someone else and the husband of the complainant during hearing of his bail application agreed not to disturb the married life of petitioner no. 2 which gets reflected from order dated 3.3.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6267 of 2010. The relevant extracts of the bail order read as follows: “The informant has appeared and produced certain documents to show that the victim is now happily married to another boy and does not want any disturbance in the said marriage by the present petitioner, who is likely to do so after his release on bail. The petitioner undertakes not to disturb the marital harmony of the victim girl and on his such undertaking, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail…….” The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant side himself admitted that the petitioner no. 2 had married to someone else, so now, they cannot say that the petitioner was subsequently married to the husband of the complainant, and if that is the fact, then no case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out as the petitioners are no way related to the complainant’s husband’s family. Hence, the case under Sections 494, 384 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act is also is also not 3 made out. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has apprehension that her husband has married with petitioner no. 2. The admission of the complainant’s husband while giving an undertaking for getting the bail reflects that the complainant’s side admits that the petitioner no. 2 is not married with O.P. No. 3, and in view of this fact, continuation of the present proceeding will create hindrance in the married life of petitioner no. 2, which will be violative of the undertaking and the order passed by this court on 3.3.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 6267 of 2010. Hence in the interest of justice the present application is allowed by quashing the order dated 2.1.2009 including the entire prosecution of Complaint Case No. 528C of 2008. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the continuation of the same will be a sheer abuse of the process of the court, as this court is convinced, that the present complaint has been filed as a retaliatory measure to the case lodged by the petitioners’ side against the complainant’s husband. Praful /- ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)