IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44634 of 2007 1. Jagdish Narayan Singh, Son of Late Sirlok Singh. 2. Sheo Kumari Devi, Wife of Jagdish Narayan Singh. 3. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Son of Jagdish Narayan Singh. All resident of Mohalla Rajiv Nagar, Road No.6, P.S. Digha, District Patna. 4. Ajit Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shivdhari Singh, Resident of Village Bastipur, P.S. Indrapuri, District Rohtas. --------- Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Shailendra Kumar, Son of Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of Village Saidpur, P.S. and District Nalanda. -------- Opposite Parties ----------- 6 19.03.2010 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the opposite party no.2. The long and short of this case is that the petitioner no.1 whose daughter was married to the complainant opposite party no.2 had died for which a criminal case was lodged on 4.12.2004 and the trial of the said case for offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code after submission of charge-sheet by the police is still pending. The complainant opposite party no.2 along with his family members is accused in this case. The present complaint case came to be filed on 27.6.2005 by way of protest petition where the police had not found an iota of truth 2 in the allegation made by the complainant opposite party no.2 that his in-laws had misbehaved with a view to either make money or get the younger daughter of the petitioner no.1 married to the complainant opposite party no.2. Thus, it becomes clear that whatever has been brought by way of allegation and for which cognizance under Section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken, is only by way of vengeance and in fact to create pressure in the pending case under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Normally, no father who has already lost his daughter is expected to get into such nefarious activities specially when the case in which his daughter’s death is still pending. Considering the aforesaid aspects, this case would fall under the category of inherent improbable case as held in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and continuance of such malicious prosecution would by itself amount to gross abuse of the process of court. That being so, the impugned order taking cognizance and the resultant entire prosecution against the petitioners is quashed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)