IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43167 of 2007 1. MD.SAKEEL, SON OF MD. SAYED ANSARI. 2. MD. SAYED ANSARI, SON OF LATE NOR MOHAMMAD. 3. ANWARI BEGUM, WIFE OF MD. SAYED ANSARI. 4. MD. NASIM. 5. MD. SOHAIL. 6. MD. KALEM. 7. GUDDU. 4 TO 7 ALL SON OF MD. SAYED ANSWARI. ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-MISKAUT, P.S. MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. NAUSHABA BANO, DAUGHTER OF LATE MD.NAYEEM ANSARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BAHADURPUR, WARD NO.1, P.S. + TOWN+ DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ……………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. B.N. Sinha “Suman”, Advocate. ----------- 3. 13.1.2009. Seven of the eight persons impleaded as accused in Samastipur(Town) P.S. Case No.211 of 1997 have prayed for the quashing of the First Information Report thereof which is pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur. The aforesaid case was registered under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of a written report submitted by one Md. Nayeem Ansari stating inter alia that his daughter Naushaba Bano, had been married to petitioner no.1 on 23.10.1992 after payment of dowry in desired goods worth Rs.1,50,000/- It is alleged that on entry in the matrimonial home, her - 2 - in-laws on perusal of the dowry goods, started taunting and cursing his daughter over the quality of goods furnished . It is further alleged that when his daughter came to his house on the occasion of Chauthari petitioner no.1 made a demand for a motorcycle and a V.C.R. He is said to have handed over a Rajdoot motorcycle purchased in the name of his daughter and an amount of Rs.9000/- to petitioner no.1 for purchasing a V.C.R. The said motorcycle, due to the carelessness of petitioner no.1, was stolen from Motihari but as the vehicle was insured the Insurance Company paid the money to his daughter which was forcibly confiscated by petitioner no.1. That notwithstanding, his daughter was tortured in various ways on the instigation of one Md. Salauddin who desired to marry off his daughter to petitioner no.1 and was ready to offer much more in dowry. Finally, after confiscating all her personal goods and ornaments Naushaba was brought to his house at Samastipur where the accused persons made a further demand for a motorcycle and cash worth Rs.2 lacs to establish petitioner no.1 through the opening of a cloth shop and it was given out that only on meeting the demands would she be taken back to the matrimonial home. They also refused to return her goods and ornaments which had been confiscated. It was also alleged that petitioner no.1 was going to marry the daughter of Md. Salamuddin on 29.6.1997 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that a compromise had been entered into between the parties on 24.11.1997 and the Matrimonial Suit No.3 of 2002 preferred by Naushaba Bano at Samastipur had been decreed on 17.8.2002 and the marriage with - 3 - petitioner no.1 having been dissolved she had remarried and was leading a peaceful conjugal life with the second husband. On the aforesaid premise it was submitted that in the facts and circumstances stated above, the continuance of the instant proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court. It appears that instead of the informant, his daughter, the subject matter of the alleged episode was impleaded as O.P. No.2 herein. She has appeared in this application and though no show cause or counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, her learned counsel does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since the marriage has ended in a divorce and the girl has remarried, no gainful purpose would be solved by continuing the proceedings which has been pending since 1997 and only two witnesses have been examined so far over this period of 11 years. Continuance of the instant proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. The entire proceeding is accordingly quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)