The main legal point established is that documents of unimpeachable character can be considered in determining whether the continuance of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

Vinod Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The petitioners have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing order dated 4.9.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Dhaka P.S. Case No. 148 of 2012 wherein the learned court below has been pleased to accept the charge-sheet against the petitioners and takes cognizance under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the very outset, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 3 died during the pendency of the case, as such the allegation against the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, it has become infructuous.

2. The prosecution story in short is that the opposite party No. 2 has filed a Complaint Case No. 524 of 2012 stating therein that inter alia that she was married to the petitioner No. 1, Jitendra Kumar on 4.3.2009 and that her family members provided dowry as per their status and ability. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 3 being father-in-law, petitioner No. 2 being brother-in-law (Dewar) created lots of obstacles in the marriage and insisted for providing Alto Car but after much persuasion, the marriage was solemnized. On 19.11.2009 "Bidai" was fixed and her husband stayed at their house thrice between 4.3.2009 and 19.11.2009 and during that course he insisted for money, car and gold, and the demand was unanimous decision of the entire family and on 19.11.2009, the husband along with this brother and father-in-law came and again demanded the money and Car and after much persuasion agreed to take her to her "Sasural' but just after two days, they subjected her to cruelty and the motivating force was her mother-in-law, accused No. 4 to the extent that she was physically assaulted, denied food till very late and she was also abused at the instigation of her mother-in-law. She also alleged that her husband had illicit relationship with accused No. 6. It is also alleged that petitioner No. 1 is in service in Air Force and he was at home for 10 days after 'Bidai' i.e. 19.11.2009 and he was also involved in putting the complainant in trouble. She was subjected to the torture by throwing tea on her and accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 also tried to strangulate her and also tried to burn her by spring killing (sic--sprinkling?) K. oil and before they could light a fire, his brother and his brother-in-law (Bahnoie) appeared and both were assaulted and locked in the house but after intervention of the people, they were allowed to go home on 20.12.2009 and since then she is at her maternal place and repeated efforts in the month of June, 2011.

3. The aforesaid complaint was referred to the police for institution of the F.I.R. and for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code and on the basis of which, Dhaka P.S. Case No. 142 of 2012 dated 21.7.2012 was instituted against the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 323, 307, 384, 406, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It further appears that after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and other accused persons and the learned S.D.J.M., Motihari, vide order dated 4.9.2013 passed in Dhaka P.S. Case No. 148 of 2012, ordered for issuance of processes against the petitioner under Section 498-A and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order taking cognizance against the petitioners. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the whole prosecution case is false and malicious being instituted against the petitioners as the petitioner No. 3 is father of the petitioner No. 1 and father-in-law of the informant and is a disable person and unable to move around on his own and has 60% disability on account of her Hansen's disease and further he was in continuous treatment since 2009 and so far the petitioner No. 2