The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of the court and the quashing of criminal proceeding based on omnibus allegations against the in-laws.

JUDGMENT :

In both the petitions common question of law and complaint petition are under challenge that is why both the petitions have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsels for the State and Mrs. J. Mazumdar and Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

3. In Cr.M.P. No. 1371 of 2013, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are brother-in-laws and petitioner no. 3 is sister-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 and in Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2012 the petitioner no. 1 is wife, petitioner no. 2 is father-in-law, petitioner nos. 3 to 5 are brother-in laws of the O.P. No.2.

4. Both the petitions have been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2010 passed in C.P. Case No. 1502 of 2010, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

5. The complaint petition has been filed by the complainant-Jawahar Choubey against the eight persons alongwith other accused as mentioned in compliant petition. As per complainant their marriage was solemnized in year 1995 with the accused No.-1 namely Ritu Choubey. It is stated that in beginning the relation between husband and wife is cordial but after ill advice/persuasion the accused started to create problem with her-in-laws and also started to not live with her husband home and without informing she always went away to her Maika. Even he did not attend the marriage of her sister-in-law (Nanad) in year 1998. After lot of persuasion she agreed to live with her husband in year 2002. Further for better education of their children accused started to live with her husband at quarter situated at B.B. Camp Roadways in year 2005-06. But the Accused No.- 1 changed her attitude and always demanded money to fulfill the expenses of her maternal home.

It was alleged that on 21.07.2010 when the complainant returned his home from his duty, he did not see his wife, on inquiring with his children they said that accused no.1 has not informed that where she is going. In the mean time she came and said that she did not feel any requirement to inform about her going out and as she wish, she will do and if any person interfere she will teach him lesson.

It was also alleged that on returning from his office complainant withdrew Rs. 15,000/- for daily expenses of his home and kept this money in Godrej Almirah.

It was further alleged that on 21.07.2010 it is around 9.30 p.m. when complainant was going to sleep he heard the sound of knocking door. His wife opened the door and this complainant also tried to see who was there he saw that all the accused as mentioned about and 14-15 other persons entered in his home with arms and on instigation of accused No.-1 they stated assaulting with lapper-thapper. Accused Dipak Pandey who has (katta) in his hand with that katta's he assaulted on the complainant eyes and it started bleeding. Accused Kalachand Pandey snatched the wrist watch from the wrist. Accused Anil Pandey took the key from janeu and taken Rs. 15,000/- from Godrej Almirah & Golden Ring. Accused Madhu Pandey started assaulting. Any how complainant saved his life and came out of his quarter and on his calling when other persons of locality came all accused fled away. This complainant informed the police all the happenings, police assured to take action. After informing police complainant returned his home and when complainant returned his home complainant saw that his ornaments, clothes, utensils and other things was not there. Even his child was also not there. Accused persons took with them. In night complainant could not go to hospital but on 22.07.2010 he consulted with Dr. M. Prasad and availed his treatment till 27.07.2010 and on his advice and he was treated at Central Hospital Saraidhela on 30.07.2010 this complainant visited time to time for formal lodging his complain before police but police did not lodge the case a