IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14984 of 2011 Bachaspati Tripathi & Anr. Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. ----------- 4/ 22-09-2011 Petitioner has been heard at length. Though the original informant was not impleaded as party but subsequently, as per information brought on record by learned counsel for the petitioners that she died while she was staying with her second husband even during subsistence of first marriage, as such taking note of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the father and the second husband was noticed. The record suggests that there happens to be family feud between the spouses which led institution of instant case bearing Islampur P.S. Case No. 133/1989 under Section 498A of the IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners along with others which till today did not meet with ultimate conclusion on account of being challenged at all level before the Hon’ble Court vide Cr.Misc. No. 6151 of 1997 as well as 5489 of 2003. The present petition happens to be third one through which the prayer has been made to quash entire proceeding even though the petitioners find their interest 2 frustrated at an earlier occasion while challenging the framing of charge vide Cr.Misc. No. 6151 of 1997. The simple prayer happens to be that the informant Sunaina Devi was married with him while petitioner, Bachaspati Tripathi was minor and so it was not a valid marriage in the light of Hindu Marriage Act. Not only this, it has also been submitted that she never remained with petitioner, Bachaspati Tripathi during her life time rather she got herself re-married with one Akhilesh Pathak with whom she begotten two children against whom, she had filed a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC which was later on compromised and so in the aforesaid background the instant petition appears to be nothing but a misuse of process of court covering ingredients prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a leading decision i.e. State of Haryana & Others V. Bhajan Lal & Ors reported in 1992 SCC (Crl) 426. Admittedly, charge has already been framed and so for the present, I do not see any cogent ground to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as it all happens to be factual one which can be raised by the petitioner at the stage of the trial. 3 With the aforesaid findings, the instant petition is disposed of. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)