IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24646 of 2007 1. SANJAY SINGH son of Late Satya Narain Singh, 2. Manju Devi @ Khairo Devi wife of late Satyanarain Singh, Both resident of Mohalla Parwatti P. O. & P. S. Tatarpur District Bhagalpur. … Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Reena Devi wife of Sri Sanjay Singh daughter of Sri Sitaram Mandal, resident of Mohalla Madhopur, P. O. Bamdeopur, P. s. Kotwali, District Munger. …. Opposite Parties with Cr.Misc. No.24791 of 2007 1. NARESH ROY son of Late Narsing Roy, Resident of Village Champanagar P.s. Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur. 2. Mukesh Kumar Son of Sri Sitaram Mandal, Resident of Mohalla Laluchak P. S. Lodipur, P. S. & District Bhagalpur. .. Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Reena Devi wife of Sri Sanjay Singh, Daughter of Sri Sitaram Mandal, resident of Mohalla Madhopur, P. S. Bamdeopur, P. S. Kotwali, District Munger. … Opposite parties For the Petitioners Mr. Vevekanand Vivek, Adv. For the opposite party Mr. Rao Kundan Kr. Karmvir, Adv, For the state Mr. Jhank Upadhyay, APP ----------- 5. 27.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. Prayer made in this application is to quash the order taking cognizance dated 7.3.2007 for an offence under Sections 323/406/498 Indian Penal code and 4 of Dowry 2 Prohibition Act. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations even if taken on the face value the same against step mother- in-law and maternal uncles (Mama) seems to be absurd inasmuch as in the nature of this dispute it is the husband who alone can be said to be involved. This Court on perusal of the specific allegation made in the complaint petition would find that the complainant, opposite party no. 2 has not only made specific allegation against the petitioners but has also explained that the maternal uncles and step mother are living in the same house as that of the husband and are instrumental in torturing her. At this stage, this court will not go into the merit of averments made in the complaint petition and consequently there would be hardly any ground to quash the proceedings at the inception. That being so, both these applications are wholly misconceived and are accordingly dismissed. 3 Opposite party no. 2 at this stage would submit that trial had remained stayed only on account of stay order passed by this Court in these two applications and consequently now trial may be expedited. In view of the fact that the matter was pending before this court for sometime with a stay order, when these applications have been dismissed, stay order stands automatically vacated and it is expected that the court below shall proceed with the trial expeditiously. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)