IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50605 of 2006 TAFEZUL & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8. 13.08.2008 A complaint case was filed by Opposite party no. 2 against the petitioners including the husband under Sections 323, 498 A of the Penal Code. The court below took cognizance only under Section 323 of the Penal Code after enquiry when it was satisfied that no offence was made out under Section 498 A of the Penal Code. The allegations were for demands of dowry and physical assault. A revision application was preferred by Opposite party no. 2 for not taking cognizance under Section 498 A of the Penal Code which was also unsuccessful leading to Cr. Misc. No. 333745 of 2003 in which by order dated 10.4.2006 this Court set aside the order of revisional court and remanded the matter to the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kishanganj to proceed afresh in accordance with law. What transpired in between was that in the trial under Section 323 of the Penal Code by judgment and order dated 29.3.2004, the petitioners were acquitted, when it was noticed that the complainant had miserably failed to examine any of her witnesses despite several opportunities, that she had left appearing in the matter, despite the order sheet having been seen and signed by her counsel when it was also recorded that she had not come to the Court with true version of the incident. This order of acquittal has attained finality. The petitioners now seek quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the order dated 15.9.2006 of the trial to which it stands - 2 - exposed under Section 498 A of the Penal Code by virtue of the order of this Court. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-husband that Opposite party no. 2 has since remarried on 4.1.2008 and is residing with her new husband one Md. Sayudur Rahman son of Md. Idreesh, resident of Panisal, Singhiya, Kishanganj. No one appears on behalf of Opposite party no. 2, despite having entered appearance. In the normal course, there would have been no justification to interfere with the fresh trial under Section 498 A of the Penal Code for reasons already discussed in the order of this Court dated 10.4.2006 in Cr. Misc. No. 33374 of 2003. It is apparent that till that stage the Opposite party no. 2 had not remarried and was, therefore, pursing the matter. Now that she has remarried on 4.1.2008, and in absence of any opposition or denial, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the petitioners, and the conduct of the Opposite party no. 2 noticed during the trial under Section 323 of the Penal Code, no useful purpose would be served by directing completion of the trial under Section 498 A of the Penal Code except to subject the petitioners to further harassment. Had the opposite party no.2 entered appearance to even oppose the present application, the matter would have been different. To reject this application and to relegate the petitioners to the rigors of criminal prosecution, when the complainant is no more interested in - 3 - the matter, to this Court shall not be in the interest of justice and shall amount to abuse of the process of the Court. There is no serious and heinous allegation and to this Court the provisions of Section 498 A of the Penal Code in absence of the same constitute more of a human than of a criminal problem. The order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kishanganj in Case No. 581 CA/2002 in the peculiar facts and circumstances and the subsequent developments as noticed hereunder stands quashed. The application is allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)