IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.3469 of 2010 1. PRAYAG RAJAK, S/o Late Barhan Rajak, 2. Dharmendra Rajak, S/o Prayag Rajak, both residents of Mohalla – Chhotki Nawada, P.S. Delha, Distt. – Gaya, 3. Kunti Devi, W/o Durgi Rajak, R/o Mohalla – Headmanpur Near Sabji Mandi, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Gaya …….. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR and 2. Gayatri Kumari, wife of Narendra Kumar, D/o Kishori Prasad Rajak, R/o Mohalla – Gayatri Nagar, Road No. 2, P.S Jamalpur, Distt. Munger at present residing at Mohalla – Jheelganj, Near Astabal, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. – Gaya ……. …………………………………………….Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties:- Mr. Mayanand Jha, Advocate. ------------ 2. 05.02.2010. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the order dated 12.06.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. C-625 of 2009 whereby she has taken cognizance under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `I.P.C.’). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint preferred before the learned Magistrate does not satisfy the ingredients of offence under Section 498A I.P.C. To appreciate the said submission I have carefully perused the complaint petition as well as the order 2 passed by the learned Magistrate. On a perusal of the same I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that they do not constitute the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has commended me to the decision rendered in Asha Devi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr., (2006) 3 PLJR 100. On a perusal of the said decision it is quite vivid that this Court had quashed the proceeding in part on certain peculiar facts and special circumstances obtainable in the said case, namely, there was a second complaint petition filed by the wife before the learned Magistrate within a period of two and half months of acquittal of the petitioners of the same charges, making omnibus, general and unsupported allegations. In view of the aforesaid, the said decision is distinguishable on facts. In the result, there is no ground to interfere in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and, accordingly, the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands rejected. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. )