Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for quashing of the cognizance order dated 22.04.2016 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Buxar in connection with G.R. No. 2967/2015, Tr. No. 2758/2016 arising out of Buxar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 37 of 2015 whereby learned court has taken cognizance under Section 341, 323, 504, 506, 509, 354 & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant namely, Farjana Khatoon has alleged that she is living at her relative’s house which is situated in Sarimpur, P.S. - Industrial Area, District – Buxar. On 02.05.2012, her marriage was solemnized with one Kalimullah at village – Usiya, District – Gazipur (U.P.) and in the said marriage, her parents had given dowry to the accused persons as per his capacity. She further alleged that after marriage accused persons further demanded one motorcycle and cash of Rs. One Lakh for business and on 28.09.2015, while she was alone at her relative’s house, all the accused persons came there and assaulted her and taken away her gifts and ornaments etc. Thereafter, she lodged the present First Information Report (in short the ‘F.I.R.’).

4. Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the present F.I.R. in issue was lodged with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner No. 1/husband and his family members. In support of his submission, learned counsel submitted that as per F.I.R., the date of occurrence is 28.09.2015, where it has been alleged by O.P. No. 2/informant/wife that her in-laws family members came to her paternal home at about 7:00 P.M. and misbehaved with her and family members and also assaulted her. They started raising demand of cash and motorcycle as dowry, but on perusal of the maintenance petition which authored by informant herself and registered before the Family Court, Gazipur, Uttar Pradesh as Maintenance Case No. 192/2016, it appears in paragraph ‘7’ that on 28.09.2015, her brother Nasim Khan and cousin brother Khurshid Khan came to her matrimonial home and brought her to parental village/house after following customary rights and rituals (Bidai). It is submitted that if statement as authored by the informant in aforesaid Maintenance Case be taken into consideration, the occurrence as alleged, through F.I.R. is not appearing convincing on it’s face.

5. It is further pointed out by learned counsel that opposite party no. 2 wrote a letter to petitioner no. 1/husband and post it to Saudi Arabia, where he was present at that point of time in connection with his professional engagement, demanding ‘Talak’ from the petitioner, where by acting upon, petitioner no. 1/husband announced ‘Triple Talak’ on 16th July, 2015 and communicated it to opposite party no. 2 through letter. At this stage, it is submitted that at that point of time ‘Triple Talak’ was valid and was not made an offence.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel that after dissolving marriage, opposite party no. 2 solemnized her marriage with her nearest relative at village Sarimpur, P.S. - Buxar Industrial Area, District – Buxar and enjoying her conjugal life. It is submitted that in the occurrence dated 28.09.2015, the F.I.R. in issue was lodged on 01.11.2015 i.e. after the delay of 3½ months, which suggest that the present F.I.R. was lodged in very planned and formulated manner to harass the petitioner no. 1/husband and his family members.

7. While concluding argument, Mr. Sharma submitted that opposite party no.2 and petitioner no. 1 dissolved their marriage under due process of law as available in their personal law and also living separately and as such continuing with present proceeding would only amount to abusing the process of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as reported in the