The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. Pursuant to order dated 29.11.2018, the opposite party no. 2 is also present in Court.

3. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for the following relief:

“That this is an application for quashing the order dated 9.11.2015 passed in complaint Case No. 1143 of 2015 (T.R. No. 736 of 2015) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram whereby and whereunder learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram pleased to took cognizance against all petitioners under sections 504, 506, 406 of the Indian Penal Code.”

4. The petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 (complainant) and petitioners no. 2 and 3 are sons of petitioner no. 1. The allegation against them is of taking Rs. 3,50,000/- and not returning the same and further of threatening with dire consequences demanding further money.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present case has been filed on 25.08.2015 as a counter blast to Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 928 of 2015 which was filed by the wife of the opposite party no. 2 on 14.08.2015 against him alleging offences under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the opposite party no. 2 and his mother. Learned counsel submitted that in the F.I.R., the allegation was that the opposite party no. 2 used to consume liquor and abuse and assault the informant and also taunt her for giving birth to two girls. Learned counsel submitted that from the plain reading of the complaint, the entire story appears to be totally unnatural and even absurd. It was submitted that the opposite party no. 2 living in the town of Sasaram would call the petitioners who are living far away in their village at Dihra under police station Dinara for giving Rs. 3,50,000/- to them for safe keeping without the petitioners taking the money or giving it to the person for whom it had been withdrawn from the Bank, is difficult to believe. Learned counsel submitted that in the background of strained relationship between the husband and the wife, the fact that the petitioners would come at the calling of the opposite party no. 2 and further that the opposite party no. 2 would give a such huge amount to them is totally unbelievable. Learned counsel further submitted that the present complaint case being filed only to counter the case filed by the wife of the opposite party no. 2 would be apparent from the fact that in the complaint, the opposite party no. 2 has stated that the petitioners had threatened that if the opposite party no. 2 did not give him the remaining amount, they would get a case under the Dowry Act lodged against him. Learned counsel submitted that the wife of the opposite party no. 2 had lodged the case in Sasaram Town P.S., as, at the relevant point of time, she was living with him and, thus, the falsity of the complaint case would be further proved where it has been stated that she used to live with the opposite party no. 2 for short periods. Learned counsel submitted that the opposite party no. 2 not even indicating that his wife was living with him on 13.08.2015 and 14.08.2015 is also indicative of the mala fide intention and of the fact that falsity has been stated in the complaint petition. Learned counsel submitted that the story of the petitioners not returning the money to the opposite party no. 2 on 25.07.2015 and there being no explanation as to what the opposite party no. 2 did with regard to the same for more than two weeks also indicates that the story is totally concocted and incorrect. Learned counsel submitted that normally, as per the procedure, if a loan is taken for a specific purpose which, in the present case, is said to be for buying land, the Bank makes direct payment to