IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49729 of 2007 1. SHYAM BABU PRASAD SON OF LATE B HIRGU NANDAN PRASAD 2. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHYAM BABU PRASAD 3. VIJAY KUMJAR SON OF SHYAMBABU PRASAD 4. RAJPATI DEVI W/O SHYAM BABU PRASAD ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NAYA BASTI, TUMARIA TOLA, P.S. RAXAUL, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. KAJAL DEVI @ SUMITA KUMARI D/O BAL KISHUN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHOTA TUMARIA TOLA, P.S. RAXAUL, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. ----------- 3. 03.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of Opposite party no. 2 despite having entered appearance. This case was passed over suo motu on 28th of February and again on 2nd of March, 2009 to enable opposite party no. 2 to appear and oppose the application. This Court is not inclined to grant any further indulgence to opposite party no. 2. The petitioners, who are the husband and his family members, are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 4.8.2007 in Raxaul P.S. Case No. 46 of 2007 by SDJM, Raxaul at Motihari under Sections 498 A, 323/34 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Alleging false implication, it is submitted that petitioner no. 2 was never married to the informant. He has been falsely implicated for reason of complaint case no. 75 of 2001 lodged by him against opposite party no. 2 and her family members when they threatened him on suspicion of having been allegedly being instrumental in a failed marriage negotiation of 2 opposite party no. 2. Cognizance has been taken in the complaint case. It is next submitted that opposite party no. 2 filed complaint case no. 384 of 2003 against one Triloki Kumar son of Laxmi Prasad Jaiswal under Sections 498 A, 323, 406 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 26.6.2003 (sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and numbered as Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 83 of 2003). The allegation was that she was being harassed for dowry. A child was born approximately four months of age from the marriage dated 20.6.2002. It was alleged that Triloki Kumar was planning to remarry. Another complaint case no. 399 of 2003 under Sections 498 A, 379, 406, 323 was filed by the said Triloki Kumar against opposite party no. 2 stating that they were married on 20.6.2002; that she was refusing to cohabit with him; that when he went to bring back her to the matrimonial home, he was chased out. The submission, therefore, is that in the present first information report lodged on 22.4.2007 the opposite party no. 2 alleges that she had a love affair with petitioner no. 2 and married him in a temple. A child was born aged approximately three and half years; that the petitioners were contemplating remarriage of Manoj Kumar, petitioner no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 could not have simultaneously married petitioner no. 2 and Triloki Kumar in 2002 itself. The child referred to in the first information report is none other than the child born as mentioned in complaint case no. 384 of 2003 filed by opposite party no. 2 against Triloki Kumar. 3 The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with a prosecution at the very initial stage is limited. But, if on the face of the allegations and the materials placed before this Court not with regard to any evidence in defence but with regard to cases pending before the Courts concerning the same parties and which proceedings/pleadings are clashing against themselves, surely serious issues arise. This Court could have dismissed this application simply holding that whether opposite party no. 2 was married petitioner no. 2 could be proved in the trial. But, this Court in the facts of the case finds substance in the submission that petitioner no. 2 could not be married simultaneously in the year 2002 both to Triloki Kumar and to petitioner no. 2. In the complaint case filed by Triloki Kumar being complaint case no. 399 of 2003 he does not even allege that his wife has gone away and married another. Likewise, opposite party no. 2 in the prosecution filed by her in 2003 still describes herself as the lawful wedded wife of Triloki Kumar and it is not her case that he ultimately left her for remarriage. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party no. 2 having chosen not to contest the matter, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present prosecution was nothing but venting of ire of opposite party no. 2 pursuant to the institution of complaint case no. 75 of 2001 against her and her family members by petitioner no. 2, in which cognizance is stated 4 to have been taken and trial is proceeding. The entire proceedings against the petitioners in Raxaul P.S. Case No. 46 of 2007 pending before the SDJM, Raxaul at Motihari is, therefore, quashed. The application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)