Criminal Miscellaneous No.3892 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------------- 1. Manish Gupta S/O Sheo Govind Gupta 2. Sheo Govind Gupta S/O Murat Gupta 3. Sampatia Devi Wife of Sheo Govind Gupta 4. Sumitra Devi W/O Kanhaiya Lal Gupta 5. Kanhaiya Lal @ Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Son of Sheo Govind Gupta All are resident of Village- Karmasi , P.S. Bhorey, P.O. Sisai Bazar, District- Gopalganj, presently residing at Subhash Nagar Near Anazmandi, P.S. & P.O. Ballamgarh, District-Faridabad, Hariyana ------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Nirmala Devi W/O Manish Gupta ( petitioner no.1) resident of Village Karmari , P.S. Bhorey, P.O. Sisai Bazar, District- Gopalganj, presently residing at C/O + D/O Raja Ram Sah, resident of Village- Hathauli, P.S. Bhorey, District- Gopalganj --- Opp.Parties. ------------- For the petitioners : S/Sri M.K.Mishra, Sr.Advocate Radha Mohan Patha,Adv. For the State : Sri Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P. ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Petitioner no.1 , who is alleged to be husband of Opp.Party no.2 and other family members, who are petitioner nos.3 to 5, have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 4.1.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.2227 of 1998( Tr.No.753 of 1999). By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498 A and 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. As per the complaint petition, the complainant had 2 earlier filed a complaint case with an allegation of torture for extracting dowry, which was subsequently referred to the police for its investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter a case vide Bhorey P.S. Case No.76 of 1997 was registered under Sections 498A, 323,379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was also asserted in the complaint petition that in the said case, accused persons were finally acquitted since compromise had arrived in between petitioner no.1 and Opp.Party no.2, who was complainant in the case. Sunbsequent to passing of the acquittal order, it has been alleged in the complaint petition that accused persons again started torturing the complainant and she was ousted from the house of her in-laws. It was alleged that ornaments were also forcibly taken by the accused persons. In the said complaint after, enquiry the learned Magistrate vide order dated 4.1.1999 has taken cognizance of the offences, as stated above. 3. Sri Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners , while challenging the order of cognizance , submits that the complaint is out and out a malicious complaint. He further submits that while filing the complaint petition, which was filed on 18.12.1998, the complainant had completely suppressed the fact that about two months back, i.e. 12.10.1998 on a petition filed by Opp.Party no.2 herself, a judgment and decree of divorce was passed by a competent court. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to Annexure-3 to the petition. On perusal of Annexure-3, it 3 appears that during the trial of Divorce Case vide HMA Petition No.40 of 1998, Opp.Party no.2 was also examined. The said divorce petition was filed by Opp.Party no.2 herself and in that case judgment and decree was passed on 12.10.1998. He submits that after the judgment and decree was passed in the divorce case, it appears that the complainant with a view of extort money from the petitioners has filed the present complaint petition. 4. In this case on 8.7.1999, while issuing notice to Opp.Party no.2 to file show cause, this Court had passed an order that till any further order is passed, further proceeding in Complaint Case No.2227 of 1998 shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 20.12.1999 this case was admitted for hearing and while admitting the case it was directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. 5. In the present case, a show cause was filed on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. However, at the time of hearing none has come forward to support the case of Opp.Party no.2.However, Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. I have examined the materials agailable on the record as well as the impugned order. On perusal of Annexure-3, i.e. judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid divorce case , I am of the view that the present complaint , in which the facts regarding dissolution of marriage was suppressed , appears to be a petition filed in a designed manner. On perusal of the record, I am of the view that 4 allowing prosecution of the petitioners on the basis of such a complaint will certainly amount to allow the abuse of the process of the court and, as such, it is necessary to intervene in the matter, even at the initial stage of the criminal case. 8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, for the ends of justice as well as to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, I set aside the order of cognizance dated 4.1.1999 passed in Complaint Case No.2227 of 1998(Tr.No.753 of 1999) and all subsequent proceedings so far as the petitioners are concerned in the said complaint case. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 8th April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )