Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 413 OF 2009 Against the order dated 25.09.2008 passed by Sri D.M. Tipathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Tr. No. 3085 of 2008 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1044 of 2008. ************ 1. Santosh Kumar Gupta, S/o Jawahar Sah. 2. Jawahar Sah, S/o Late Musahar Sah. 3. Ram Somari Devi, W/o Jawahar Sah. 4. Pratima Kumari, Daughter of Jawahar Sah. 5. Manoj Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Musahar Sah. 6. Suresh Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Musahar Sah. All resident of Village-Turki Station, P.S.- Kurhani, District-Muzaffarpur. 7. Mahabir Prasad, S/o Late Saryug Prasad Gupta. 8. Raj Kumar Gupta, S/o Mahabir Prasad Gupta. 9. Sangita Devi, W/o Raj Kumar Gupta. All resident of Koiria Tola, Raxaul, Ward No. 15, P.S.-Raxaul, District-East Champaran. ……(Petitioners) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Pinki Devi, W/o Santosh Kumar Gupta and daughter of Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta, resident of Prakash Path, New Zero Mile, Ahiyapur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, Ward No. 9, District-Muzaffarpur. ------- (Opposite Parties) ************* For the Petitioners: Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding of the order dated 25.09.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur passed in Tr. No. 3085 of 2008 by which it has taken cognizance under Sections 147, 323, 380, 452 and 504 IPC. 2 2. The allegation in the Complaint is that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 but she was tortured for ends of dowry on account of which she had filed a criminal case as also an application for maintenance before the Family Court. In view of such litigations the complainant is not allowed to live in her Sasural at Lakhisarai and she was driven out. Then she started living in the house of her grandfather-in-law which was purchased by her in-laws. When the accused persons came to know that the complainant was living in the said house they started pressurizing her to vacate the same and on the date of occurrence they came variously armed and drove her out of the house and her husband committed theft of her jewellery. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 had been married to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 22.06.2003 and earlier the complainant had filed a complaint numbered as Complaint Case No. 1108/2007 on 02.05.2007 alleging therein that on account of demands of dowry and non-fulfilment of the same she had been driven out of the house. Later a Panchayati was held and the matter was sorted out for a while whereafter once again she was harassed and driven out of the house so she was now living with her own maternal family. 3 4. The petitioners submit that in the light of the complainant’s categorical assertion in the earlier complaint instituted as recently on 22.05.2007 that she was living in her maternal home the present complaint is evidently malicious and instituted for the purpose of harassing the petitioners. 5. The Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 is unable to satisfy this Court as to whether any development had taken place between the complainant and the petitioners after she filed complaint on 02.05.2007 with regard to her living arrangement. 6. I am thus inclined to agree with the petitioners that in facts and circumstances of the case the present complaint is an abuse of the process of the Court. In the result, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including order dated 25.09.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Tr. No. 3085 of 2008 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1044 of 2008 is, hereby, set aside. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 19th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-