Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. None appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 despite service of notice.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.3.2003 as also the entire proceedings in Complaint. Case No 307 of 2003 under Sections 498A, 323, 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Secs. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed by the SDJM East Muzaffarpur.

3. The petitioners are stated to be the married sister of the husband of the complainant and her husband. They have been implicated as accused 7 and 6 respectively in the complaint.

4. The allegations are that the complainant was married to accused No. 1 on 10.6.98. She went to her matrimonial home and started residing with her husband. The husband, the mother-in-law, the brother-in-law, his wife and the present petitioners all reside in one house in Khagaul. There are omnibus a legation against the petitioners that they along with other accused allegedly made demands for a Maruti car. The complainant was driven out of her matrimonial home on 9.2.2003. The husband subsequently stated that he will not keep the complainant in