Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Once again a family feud between husband Sujeet Kumar (A1), his parents and other relatives on the one side and his wife Smt. Pratibha Roy (Smt. Pratibha Rai), respondent No. 2(R2)on the other has vented in launching of a prosecution against the entire husband’s family consisting of husband Sujeet Kumar(A1),his parents Vishwanath Rai (A-2) and Smt. Umda Devi (A-3), younger brother Pradeep Rai (A-4), sister Puneeta (A-5) and uncle-in-law Ramnath Rai (A-6) by R2 through Complaint Case No. 275 of 2009, Smt. Pratibha Rai v. Sujeet Kumar and others, under Section 406 IPC P.S. Indirapuram, district Ghaziabad before ACJM II. By invoking inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.(in short Code), through instant application accused applicants have sought quashing of proceedings of said trial with additional prayer for stay of further proceedings in the Court below meanwhile.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details and stated briefly, complainant’s allegations in her complaint registered as case No. 320 of 2008(subsequently renumbered as 275 of 2009)are that she was married to A1 on 2.5.2004 in her parental house at B-4095, Sector-4, Vasundhara P.S. Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad. In her coverture besides cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs, Rs. 35,000/- were spent on bed room and dinning materials, Rs. 37,000/- on ornaments consisting of gold chain, gold ring etc., Rs. 60,000/- on draper- Sarees, blouse etc.,Rs. Rs. 45,000/- on suit links and other muslins of bridegroom and Rs. 35,000/- were spent on utensils, gas stove etc. Rs. One and half lacs was spent on other expenditures and thus a total sum of Rs. 6,17,000/- was spent.

3. After nuptial knot R2 went to her in-laws house at madhubani, Bihar where she was tortured because of rapacious attitude of the applicants for additional demand of a Tata Sumo Car with cash amount of Rs. Five lacs. Inability by the parents of R2 escalated torture on her hence she was brought back to her parental house where she remained for most of time. On 10.4.2008, A-1 came to Ghaziabad and asked R2 to accompany him on the pretext of a marriage being solemnized in his house on 5.3.2008. R2 accompanied A-1 on 17.2.2008 for her in-laws house but no sooner they boarded the train A-1 inquired from R2 whether she had brought any money or not? On a negative reply by R2, A1 threatened her with klife and with dire consequences. On reaching her in-laws house, R2 discovered that marriage pretext was a hoax. Being terrified and sensing danger of her elimination R2 sent for her uncle on phone. Meanwhile applicants got a note scribed from her on a plain sheet of paper. R2 thereafter was brought back to her parents house by her uncle at Ghaziabad. When R2 asked for return of her stridhan she was rebuffed by the applicants.

4. With above allegations, complainant wife R2 lodged a complaint, Annexure No. 1, before ACJM II, Ghaziabad on 25.4.2008 for breach of trust under Section 406 IPC against A-1 to A-6, which Complaint was initially registered as Case No. 320 of 2008 but later on was renumbered as case No. 275 of 2009. Adopting complaint case procedure trial Magistrate recorded statements under Section 200 of R2 (Annexure CA-1) and that of her witnesses Sanjeev Rawut (uncle of R2) and her father Ram Ajay Rawut (Annexures CA-2 and CA-3) under Section 202 of the Code and thereafter summoned the applicants under Section 406 IPC vide it’s order dated 18.7.2008, fixing 29.8.2008 for their appearance.

Hence, instant Application, under Section 482 of the Code with the prayers to quash entire proceedings by the accused applicants.

To the counter-affidavit was filed by Alok Kumar Rai on behalf of R2, counsel for applicants opted not to file any rejoinder affidavit inspite of opportunity being offered and preferred to argue the case finally.

5. I have heard Sri A.K. Singh, advocate in support of this application, Ld. AGA for respondent No. 1 State and Sri Alok Kumar Rai advocate for respondent No. 2 and perused the e