IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.51770 OF 2007 KHALIL ANSARI @ MD. KHALIL ANSARI, SON OF MD. AHMAD ANSARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAKHTAN, POLICE STATION KHIYARSARAI, DISTRICT GAYA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RUKSHANA KHATOON, DAUGHTER OF MD. SARFUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARA, POLICE STATION CHANDAUTI, DISTRICT GAYA …………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** 8 24/06/2009 This application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Chandauti Police Station Case No. 37 of 2004 instituted under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the complainant was married with Md. Ayub Ansari on 31.08.2000. After the marriage, she went to live with her husband in Delhi where she came to know that her husband was married earlier but his first wife was no longer alive and he had three sons from his first wife. After sometimes, the complainant got pregnant but she was pressurized to terminate her pregnancy by her in-laws and there was also a demand of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner Khalil Ansari was the father-in-law of the complainant. From the perusal of the application, it 2 appears that the husband of the complainant divorced her on 15.07.2003 and the complaint petition was filed thereafter on 11.11.2003 which was subsequently converted in First Information Report. The husband of the complainant had also paid the complainant her Maher vide draft no. 285023 dated 30.07.2003 drawn from Punjab National Bank, Deonagar, Karolbagh, New Delhi. In the complaint petition, it has also been mentioned that the complainant delivered a child who was one and a half years old at the time of filing of the complaint petition and she was thrown out from the house by her in- laws. This petitioner is the father-on-law. The main submission in this case is that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged occurrence and if at all there is any dispute, it is between the husband and the wife, i.e. the son of the petitioner and the complainant. The second salient feature of this case is that the lady has now been divorced and as such there is no relationship between the husband and the wife i.e. the complainant and Md. Ayub Ansari and thirdly it is stated that the case has been filed after delay and is an afterthought and has no legs to stand upon. In the facts of this case, it appears that 3 the role of this petitioner is very limited and he cannot be said to be responsible for either forcing the complainant to terminate her pregnancy or for throwing her out of the house. In any event, it has been pointed out that the case appears to be prima facie false as it is admitted by the complainant that she successfully gave birth to a child and as such there can be no question that the petitioner or other family members have forced the complainant to terminate her pregnancy. However, all these points can be considered at the time of cognizance or at the time of framing of charge. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for discharge. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )