Criminal Miscellaneous No.11531 OF 1999 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---- 1. ABDUL BAHAB SON OF LATE REYAZ AHMAD 2. SALIMUN NISHA WIFE OF ABDUL BAHAB 3. ABRAR AHMAD 4. ASHRAR AHMAD BOTH SONS OF ABDUL BAHAB, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE & POLICE STATION SUKHPURA, DISTRICT BALIA (UTTAR PRADESH). ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JAHANGIR SON OF YATIM SHAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ARANDA, POLICE STATION M.H. NAGAR, DISTRICT SIWAN. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : M/S Rakesh Chandra, Adv. Ranjan Kumar Dubey,Adv. For the State : Mr. Atul Chandra, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 28.2.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No.138 of 1996/Trial No.641 of 1998. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under Section 379 of - 2 - the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of process for securing attendance of accused persons. 3. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan vide Complaint Case No.138 of 1996, disclosing therein that his son, namely, Aurangzeb was married with the daughter of petitioner no.1, namely, Afroz Ara. It has been disclosed that since last few years, there were some dispute in between the family of complainant and accused persons. His daughter-in-law Afroz Ara had left her inlaws house and she is residing with her parent and despite vigorous persuasion made by the complainant side, she had not come back. However, on the date of occurrence i.e. on 4.2.1996 at about 5.00 P.M., all the accused persons visited the house of the complainant with a view to make settlement of dispute. The complainant provided accommodation to the accused persons in his house. It was alleged that after taking the meal, the accused persons were provided with the blanket so that they can stay in the night in the complainant’s house. However, early in the - 3 - morning, it was noticed that all the accused persons had left the house of the complainant and on verification, it was found that accused persons had stolen five blankets of the complainant which according to complainant was for an amount of Rs.2,500/-. On said allegation, the complaint petition was filed alleging therein that accused persons had committed offences under Sections 379 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. After filing of the complaint, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of the complaint case, one witness was examined. The learned Magistrate, after examining the materials available on record by its order dated 18.2.1996, took cognizance for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal code and directed for issuance of process. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the present petition was filed maliciously and only with a view to put pressure on the petitioners particularly to put pressure on the daughter of the petitioner no.1, who had earlier filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. - 4 - against her husband Aurangzeb, who is son of complainant. Learned counsel, by referring to paragraph-7 of the petition, has further submitted that after the marriage, the husband of the complainant along with his family members started torturing the daughter of petitioner no.1 for extracting dowry and she was also forced to live her inlaws house. Thereafter, a complaint case was filed for the offence under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was filed by petitioner no.4, who is son of petitioner no.1. It has further been submitted that in the complaint petition, which was filed by petitioner no.4 against the complainant, his wife and his son Aurangzeb, learned court had also taken cognizance and thereafter, they were granted bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the date of filing of the complaint petition by opposite party no.2, the maintenance case filed by daughter of petitioner no.1 was pending. He further submits that it is improbable that the petitioner, who are resident of Uttar Pradesh, had come to Siwan for committing theft of five blankets of the complainant. He submits that - 5 - in the facts and circumstances as indicated above, it is evident that the present complaint case was filed maliciously and with a view to wreak vengeance against the petitioners and daughter of petitioner no.1 and, accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of order of cognizance and all subsequent proceeding in Complaint Case No.138 of 1996. 5. Besides, hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have also examined the materials available on record. On perusal of the materials available on record, I am satisfied that the present complaint petition was filed maliciously and only with a view to put pressure on the daughter of petitioner no.1 as well as on entire family members of petitioners. Fact remains that the daughter of petitioner no.1 was ousted from the house of her inlaws particularly the complainant, who is father-in-law of daughter of the petitioner no.1. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, I am of the opinion that allowing the proceeding in Complaint Case No.138 of 1996 to further proceed will certainly amount to allowing abuse of the process - 6 - of the court. With a view to prevent abuse of the process of the court as well as for the ends of justices, I do hereby quash the order of cognizance dated 28.2.1996 and all subsequent proceeding in Complaint Case No.138 of 1996 so far as it relates to petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 26.4.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.