R. Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2.

2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. C-210/2000 including the order dated 3.10.2000, passed by Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, by which cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379, 451, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story, as would appear from the complaint petition instituted by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 herein, is that the complainant was married with Anita Kumari (petitioner no. 3), on 11.5.1999. It is alleged that on 23.5.1999, the accused nos. 1 and 3 along with some unknown persons forcibly took away accused no. 4 without taking permission of the complainant and they had also taken away ornaments, cloths and other articles, worth Rs. 40,000/-. It is alleged that the complainant on several occasion tried to get the Bidai of his wife but she disagreed and since the accused persons had threatened the complainant, a Sanha was lodged by the complainant. It has also been alleged that on 2.9.2000, the accused persons along with some other persons came to the house of the complainant and directed him to withdraw the Sanha and when he refused, the complainant and his father were assaulted and threatened on the point of pistol.

4. After conducting enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and his witnesses, cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379, 451, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 3.10.2000.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law of the complainant, petitioner no. 2 is the brother-in-law of the complainant, the petitioner no. 3 is the wife of the complainant and petitioner no. 4 is the mother-in-law of the complainant and only with a view to harass and humiliate his in-laws, the complainant had filed the complaint case making bald allegations against his in-laws. He has further submitted that the complaint petition does not reveal any criminal offence as against the petitioners. He has also submitted that the petitioner no. 3, who is the wife of the complainant, had lodged a case under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 452 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the complainant-opposite party no. 2 herein was convicted, which was also affirmed in appeal. He has further submitted that to create a defence in the case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the opposite party no. 2 being the husband of petitioner no. 3, has lodged this present case.

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the complaint case instituted by the opposite party no. 2 was prior to the case instituted by the petitioner no. 3 against the complainant and her in-laws and, therefore, it cannot said to be a case instituted for wreaking vengeance upon the accused persons.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that immediately after solemnization of marriage on 11.5.1999, the present complaint case has been instituted within a year and half i.e. on 4.9.2000. The contents of the complaint petition reveals that all the in-laws of the complainant including his wife have been made accused and the strained relationship which the complainant was sharing with the petitioner no. 3 is evident from the fact that the petitioner no. 3 had also lodged a criminal case under various provisions of Indian Penal Code including Section 498-A as also the provisions under the Dowry Prohibition Act, in which the complainant-O.P. No. 2 was convicted, which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. The animosity a