IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.3355 of 2010 ***** 1. Sandhya Devi Daughter of Ram Narayan Paswan 2. Ram Narayan Ram @ Ram Narayan Paswan, son of Late Sheolagan Paswan. 3. Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Prasad son of Ram Narayan Paswan All residents of Village-Bhaluni, P.O. Ghordiha, P.S. Kargahar, District-Rohtas. 4. Anup Paswan @ Anup Kumar, son of Surendra Paswan, resident of Village- Lalganj, P.O. Sasaram, P.S. Sasaram(M), District-Rohtas. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Jai Prakash Kumar son of Bharat Paswan, resident of Village Tilai, P.S. Sanjhauli, Dsitrict-Rohtas. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudama Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 5.2.2010. Heard Mr. Sudama Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Questioning the correctness of the order taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sasaram in Complaint Case No.491/08, it is submitted by Mr. Singh that the entire case which has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 deserves to be quashed as it is founded on mala fide and is instituted to wreck vengeance inasmuch as a distress warrant has been issued against the husband because of non-payment of maintenance amount - 2 - awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the complaint petition, especially paragraphs 3 and 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion it cannot be said that the complaint, read as a whole, does not make out any offence against the accused persons. It is difficult to say that criminal law has been set in motion in a malicious manner and with a vindictive attitude. Thus, the present case does not fit into any of the compartments, which has been laid by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., A.I.R. 1992 S.C.604. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance and resultantly the petition, being devoid of merit, stands rejected. Be it clarified, non-interference by this Court at this stage by no way would have any kind of bearing on the trial. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ)