IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39132 of 2007 1. DINESH KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE HARI LAL SINGH 2. SEEMA DEVI W/O DINESH SINGH 3. JITENDRA KUMAR 4. ABHAY KUMAR BOTH S/O MOTI LAL SINGH 5. RAMBHA DEVI @ EKADASI DEVI @ PURNAWASI DEVI W/O MOTI LAL SINGH 6. MOTI LAL SINGH S/O LATE BHIKHAM SINGH 7. LAXMI DEVI W/O LATE HARI LAL SINGH ALL R/O VILLAGE- GAYA GHAT, P.S.- HARSIDHI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN ………….Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …………..Opposite Party ----------- 6. 12.05.2011 No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 153/05 by which he has taken cognizance under Section 406, 420/34 I.P.C. The present case was instituted against the accused persons by the complainant alleging that he was married to the daughter of the petitioner no. 6 in the year 1999 and later on 20.10.2004 the petitioner no. 6 borrowed money from the informant for the education of the petitioner no. 3 but refused to repay the same. When the money borrowed was not returned, the complainant demanded the same 2 be done as also he requested ‘bidagiri’ of his wife and instead he was allegedly abused and assaulted. The case was investigated and it ended in a final report which was accepted by the court below. The complainant/ informant then moved the Revisional court which remanded the matter to the court below for a fresh consideration on the point of cognizance without hearing the present petitioners and thereafter, the present impugned order was passed. On going through the petition filed herein, I find that the daughter of petitioner no.6 had filed complaint case bearing no. 210 of 2005 on 3.2.05 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran for offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and other allied Sections and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was registered as Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 46/05, in which charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. In the meanwhile on 29.4.2005 the informant filed a Matrimonial Case No. 34/05 for a decree of divorce against the daughter of petitioner no. 6, and the present complaint. In the background facts of the case, it 3 appears that the present complaint/First Information Report is evidently malicious and, therefore, an abuse of the processes of the court. In the result the application is allowed and the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 153/05, is hereby quashed. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J.)