IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36251 of 2006 1. SALIM KHAN SON OF HAFIJ KHAN 2. JAMIL KHAN SON OF HAFIJ KHAN 3. NASEEM KHAN SON OF HAFIJ KHAN 4. KALIM KHAN SON OF HAFIJ KHAN 5. KAMARUN NISHA W/O HAFIJ KHAN 6. JULEKHA KHATOON @ JULEKHA BEGUM W/O JAMIN KHAN Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. HUSNA BANO W/O SALIM KHAN ----------- 6. 17.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. No one appears on behalf of Opposite party no.2, despite service of notice. The petitioners are the husband and his family members aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 30.6.2006 passed by SDJM, Sasaram in Complaint case No. 710 of 2005 under Sections 498 A, 384 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that a divorce took place between Opposite party no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 on 1.6.2005 before Imaratesaria according to customary Mohammedan Law. The present complaint has been filed thereafter on 4.7.2005. Prior to the divorce, petitioner no. 1 had endeavoured for restitution of conjugal rights in which the complainant declined to cooperate and to go back to the matrimonial home. She has since filed a maintenance case also on 10.2.2006. The submission, therefore, is that she has instituted 2 the complaint case only after a divorce between the parties when the husband was willing and ready for restitution of conjugal rights which the opposite party no. 2 declined, to allow the prosecution to continue shall clearly be an abuse of the process of law. Matrimonial matters cannot be given the colour of a criminal prosecution simplicitor. A human element is involved. The petitioner no. 1 is stated to have attempted reconciliation of conjugal rights. He appeared to be unsuccessful when the parties prayed for divorce. (Though now admits to resile from the same at paragraph 11 of the complaint by stating that it was obtained by coercion.) The fact that she has chosen not to appear in the present proceedings satisfies this Court of the veracity of the divorce between the parties. She has also filed a claim for maintenance. The allegations in the complaint case are generalized against the entire family. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where opposite party no. 2 does not appear to be serious or interested in pursing the complaint case, this Court is not persuaded to decline interference for the reason that the petitioners can have adequate defence in the trial itself. To permit the prosecution to continue against them shall only lead to further harassment in view of disinterest shown by opposite party no. 2. In the result, the entire prosecution of the petitioners in Complaint case No. 710 of 2005 is hereby quashed. 3 The application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)