IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8940 of 2009 1. CHITRA KALA DEVI @ CHANDRA KALA DEVI, WIFE OF AMANT SINGH @ HEMANT SINGH, SON OF PRAMOD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE CHAKRAM DAS, P.S. VAISHALI, DISTT. VAISHALI AT PRESENT D/O BIPODAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE SITALPUR BABU TOLA, P.S. SITALPUR, P.S. DIGHWARA, DISTT. SARAN (CHAPRA). 2. BIPODAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM LOCHAN SINGH 3. NARSHOTAM KUMAR 4. PUROSOTAM KUMAR @ HARISOTAM KUMAR @ PUROSOTAM SINGH 5. DINBANDHU SINGH @ MUNNA SINGH THREE SONS ARE BIPODAR SINGH. 6. TRILOKI NATH SINGH, SON OF RAM BILOCHAN SINGH 7. DEVA NAND SINGH 8. DEEPAK SINGH BOTH SONS ARE BHAVICHHAN SINGH 9. GUDDY DEVI, WIFE OF PROSOTAM KUMAR @ HARISOTAM KUMAR. 10. SUNITA DEVI, WIFE OF DINBANDHU SINGH @ MUNNA SINGH ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SITALPUR BABU TOLA, P.S. DIGHWARA, DISTT. SARAN (CHAPRA). 11. VINAY KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF RAM BHAWAN SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE SITALPUR SHARMA TOLA, P.S. DIGHWARA, DISTT. SARAN (CHAPRA). -------- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ASHOK SINGH, SON OF PRAMOD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKRAM DAS, P.S. VAISHALI, DISTT. VAISHALI. --------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 01.09.2010 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur, in Complaint Case No. 1054(C) of 2008 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The background of the case is that the Petitioner No. 1 was married to the younger brother of the Opposite Party No. 2 and due to matrimonial dispute she had filed a case against her in-laws on 20.12.2007. After due investigation, charge sheet 2 was submitted in the matter. Thereafter, five months later the present case was instituted by the Opposite Party No. 2 stating therein that the accused persons entered into his house and slapped him variously and committed theft of his household articles. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that in the background of the case it clearly appears to be an instance of malicious prosecution and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be protected from the vagaries of the prosecution lodged for ulterior purposes. The Opposite Party No. 2 submits that in the facts of the case, a case is made out against the accused persons and they can seek redressal of their grievance at the stage of framing of charge. Considering the entire conspectus of the case, in my view, the present Complaint is nothing but a piece of malicious prosecution and for this reason the petitioners need to be absolved of such a case. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 21.8.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Complaint Case No. 1054(C) of 2008 is hereby quashed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)