IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29021 of 1999 Indra Gupta wife of Harischandar Prasad, resident of Ashok Nagar, Road No. 14 A, Kankarbagh Patna, P.S Kankarbagh District Patna .... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Smt. Smriti Bala wife of Sri Sunil Kumar Dev resident of Kothi Hat Chouk, P.S. Farbisganj, District- Araria ... .... Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. P. C. Das, Advocate Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Lal Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Advocate ---------- 4 23-04-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the complainant has chosen not to appear. Petitioner is mother of complainant of complaint case no. 1152(c)/1999 wherein by order dated 28-8-1999 cognizance has been taken under sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and 342 of the IPC and the case has been transferred to the court of a Judicial Magistrate at Araria. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance on the ground that it is a malafide prosecution by her daughter who is acting under the pressure of one Sunil Kumar Deo with whom she apparently married without the consent of the petitioner or her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon annexure-2 which is FIR of Kadamkuan PS case No. 337 dated 19-6-1999 preferred by the petitioner against Sunil Kumar Deo and his family members for offence u/s 366 and 368 of the IPC on the allegation that those accused have kidnapped the daughter of the petitioner for ulterior motives. It has been pointed out that after few days of lodging of the said police case the 2 present complaint case has been filed on 8-7-99 because on that very date by annexure-3 this court dismissed a Criminal Writ petition filed by the accused persons for quashing of the FIR of Kadamkuan (Kankargabh) PS case no 337/1999 lodged by this petitioner. On going through the petition of complaint, it appears that devoid of any ornamental allegations, this petitioner allegedly went to the matrimonial house of complainant with a view to persuade her to come back to her parents and allegedly complainant refused to do so. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the prosecution against the petitioner appears to be malafide only with a view to pressurize her to withdraw the earlier criminal case. The allegations are also not of any serious nature and hardly make out any substantive offence. Even if true, they only show the anxiety of a mother to bring her daughter back from a place which according to mother was not conducive and proper for her daughter to live. Hence, interest of justice warrants that present prosecution against the petitioner be quashed. It is, accordingly, quashed. This application is allowed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)