Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Both the petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are directed against the order dated 18.3.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, in complaint case No. 431 of 1993, wherebv cognizance of the alleged offences have been taken under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A, IPC and the petitioners have been summoned to stand their trial. Both the quashing petitions arise out of the same impugned order and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. According to the allegations in the petition of complaint, the complainant (O.P. No. 2 herein) was married to accused No. 1, Gautam Sinha (the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 7776 of 1994, according to the Hindu Rites on 10.6.1992 at Kishanganj. Accused No. 2, Sarju Prasad Sinha and accused No. 3 Smt. Lakhi Sinha, wife of Sarju Prasad Sinha, are the father and mother, respectively of the aforesaid Gautam Sinha (and are petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in Cr. Misc. No. 5870 of 1994). The petitioners are residents of Patna and had taken the barat party to Kishanganj where the parents of O.P. No. 2 live. Soon after the barat had arrived at Kishanganj, the petitioners and others started complaining about the low-key reception given to them. After some problems, the marriage was solemnized in the night of 10.6.1992 and the barat returned to Patna, the following day. According to the further allegations, the parents of O.P. No. 2 had given golden jewelleries, silver jewelleries, clothes, utensils, bed, etc. as marriage gifts to O.P. No. 2. A cash sum of Rs. 61,000/- was also given to her for purchase of VCR, Colour TV, Washing Machine, bedroom, furniture for the newly-married couple, etc. but the parents of Gautam Sinha have arrogated the entire cash and never purchased the items for which the money had been given. The parents of Gautam Sinha as well as his sister and other relatives kept on complaining to O.P. No. 2 about the poor quality of gift items given to them and mentally torturing her. 2.1 According to the further allegations, after some time, the in-laws of O.P. No. 2 started physically torturing her and the mental torture continued unabated. The parents of Gautam Sinha as well as his sister and other relatives kept on complaining to O.P. No. 2 about the poor quality of gift items given to them and mentally torturing her. 2.1 According to the further allegations, after some time, the in-laws of O.P. No. 2 started physically torturing her and the mental torture continued unabated. The in-laws started telling her that they had not got a wife for their son, but a maid and she will get the same treatment and will never be allowed to go to her fathers place. Gautam Sinha tortured O.P. No. 2 mentally and physically while sharing the bed with her. The situation reached a head and the complainant started thinking in terms of suicide. She also apprehended danger to her life at the instance of the petitioners. 2.2 According to the further allegations, the parents and a relative of O.P No. 2 visited her sasural at Patna on 21.6.1992. The petitioners herein said that O.P. No. 2 cannot be allowed to go to her parents place and demanded that either the gifts should be replaced by quality items or a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs be given. They were severely insulted and turned out of the house with the words that they should forget that their daughter is still alive. 2.3 According to the further allegations, the final phase of cruelty commenced when O.P. No. 2 was subjected to unbearable torture, was being kept in a locked room, was not allowed to meet outsiders or write letters to her parents, and at times assaulted her. She also overheard the accused-persons conspiring to do away with the life of the complainant. Finding her life in danger, she went to the house of one Ramanand Prasad, a retired DSP living close by on 1.8.1992, who took her to one Sadanand Das, her close relative and both of them had brought her to Kishanganj, where her injuries were treated by a doctor. 2.4 According to the further allegations, the petitioners went over to Kishanganj on 1.8.1993 and visited the parents of O.P. No. 2 and told her that she should persuade her parents to give a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners. On her unwillingness to convey it to her parents, the petitioners slapped her, in her own house at Kishanganj and dashed her against the wall causing injuries. 3. 2 lakhs to the petitioners. On her unwillingness to convey it to her parents, the petitioners slapped her, in her own house at Kishanganj and dashed her against the wall causing injuries. 3. On these allegations, the aforesaid complaint petition was filed under Sections 323, 498-A and 406, IPC and was registered as complaint case No. 431 of 1993. A copy of the complaint petition is marked Annexure 1 to the quashing petition. The learned CJM conducted an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, and passed the impugned order. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order of cognizance, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations of torture are quite vague and no case is made out. He also submitted that the complaint petition has been filed after a delay of more than one year. He further submitted that it is a malicious prosecution against the petitioners, and is by way of retaliation to the divorce proceedings. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court Bhajan Lal V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1992 SCC 604 , as well as M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. V/s. Spl. Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128. He lastly submitted that the present prosecution is to harass the petitioners and is going to be a futile prosecution. It is now admitted at all hands that the marriage between the complainant and accused No. 1 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and the latter has already married. He has, in fact, married for the third time, the second wife having died on account of burn injuries. 5. Learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2 (the complainant), submitted in opposition that on a plain reading of the complaint petition a prima facie case is made out under Sections 323, 498-A and 406, IPC against the petitioners. He next submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no delay has occurred in starting the prosecution. He has relied on the following portion of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court Sukhu Mahto V/s. State of Bihar, 1992 2 PLJR 134, which occurs in paragraph No. 24 at page 141 of the report: "...Laws cannot be interpreted and enforced divorced from their effect on human beings for whom laws are meant. Undoubtedly, rule of law must prevail, but as is often said rule of law must run akin to rules of life. Undoubtedly, rule of law must prevail, but as is often said rule of law must run akin to rules of life. Life of law is not logic but experience." 5.1 He lastly submitted that it is undoubtedly correct to state that the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and the appeal is pending in this Court, which was lodged on 30.11996. Admittedly, accused No. 1 has married for the second time after dissolution of the marriage. His second wife has died on account of burn injuries and he (Gautam Sinha) was subjected to a criminal case, whereafter he has married for the third time. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that these petitions have to be dismissed. It is manifest from a plain reading of the petition of complaint that the problems had started soon after the barat had reached Kishanganj, i.e., even before the marriage was performed. The petitioners had constantly tortured her because lavish arrangements had not been made at Kishanganj, during the time of marriage and also for the poor quality of gifts, jewelleries, etc. given to her by her parents, and everything given to her have been arrogated by her in-laws Rs. 51,000/- and further sum of Rs. 10,000/-for purchase of items of comfort and day-to-day need have also been arrogated by her in-laws. The jewelleries, etc. given to her by her parents have been arrogated by her in-laws. She was sternly told that she had been brought to the family as a maid and will never get the treatment of a wife, and that she will never be allowed to go to her fathers place. The husband had always tortured her mentally and physically while sharing the bed. The physical and mental torture against O.P. No. 2 had reached a head and she was driven to the brink of suicide. However, O.P. No. 2 and her parents waited for quite some time thinking that the situation will improve with the passage of time. She was, however, not allowed to visit her parents and was physically assaulted by the petitioners without any rhyme and reason. On 1st August, 1992 ultimately the petitioners demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from the parents of O.P. No. 2 which they were unable to pay was subject to assault in her own house. She was, however, not allowed to visit her parents and was physically assaulted by the petitioners without any rhyme and reason. On 1st August, 1992 ultimately the petitioners demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from the parents of O.P. No. 2 which they were unable to pay was subject to assault in her own house. It is thus manifest that prima facie a case is clearly made out within the penal provisions of the Code under which cognizance has been taken. There is no vagueness in the allegations. I have not the slightest manner of doubt that the present case is not all covered by Pepsi Foods case (supra). The learned CJM has taken care to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, applied his judicial mind, and then passed the impugned order. I, therefore, reject the first contention of the petitioners. 7. Learned Counsel next submitted that the petition of complaint has been filed after a lapse of more than one year and, therefore, the same is fit to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is manifest from a plain reading of the allegations in the petition of complaint that O.P. No. 2 and her parents were silently suffering the incessant torture inflicted on her in the hope that situation will improve with the passage of time. Such is the social position amongst the middle class people in this State, that the bride and her parents are in a weaker position and invariably give a long rope to the bridegroom and his family so that things may possibly improve with the passage of time. Second marriage of the girl is not easy. And things had reached an irreversible position on 1.8.1993, the day on which the petitioners had visited her at Kishanganj, had demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and dashed her against the wall in her own house. The petition of complaint was filed on 17.8.1993. On the very face of it, therefore, there is really no delay at all. The contention is accordingly rejected. 8. Counsel lastly submitted that it is a malicious prosecution to wreck vengeance because of the divorce proceedings, and went to the extent of submitting that it is a counterblast to the same. The contention is started only to be rejected. The complaint petition was filed on 17.8.1993 and the divorce suit was filed in September 1994. 8. Counsel lastly submitted that it is a malicious prosecution to wreck vengeance because of the divorce proceedings, and went to the extent of submitting that it is a counterblast to the same. The contention is started only to be rejected. The complaint petition was filed on 17.8.1993 and the divorce suit was filed in September 1994. The complaint petition having been filed more than one year prior to the institution of the divorce suit, there is absolutely no question of the former being a counterblast to the latter. I equally see no substance in the contention of the petitioners that it is meant to harass them. On the contrary, it is the poor girl (O.R No. 2) who has been subjected to untold sufferings by the petitioners ever since the barat party had reached Kishanganj. I, therefore, find it impossible to conceive that the present case is covered by proposition No. 7 of Bhajan Lals case (supra). The fact that the marriage between O.P. No. 2 with Gautam Sinha has been dissolved by a decree of divorce does not in the least dilute the alleged offences and the physical torture perpetrated against her. 9. In the result, there quashing petitions are dismissed. The impugned order dated 18.3.1994 passed in complaint case No. 431 of 1993, is hereby upheld. Since the Judgment is being delivered in the presence of the parties, the petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on 16.11.1999 without fail and without the necessity of issuance of notices. Since it is an old matter, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months. Any failure or refusal on the part of the three petitioners herein to appear before the trial Court in person on 16.11.1999 without fail and without the necessity of issuance of notices. Since it is an old matter, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months. Any failure or refusal on the part of the three petitioners herein to appear before the trial Court in person on 16.11.1999 shall be treated as contempt of this Court. Let a copy of this judgment along with the records be sent to the trial Court per special messenger forthwith. 10. Any failure or refusal on the part of the three petitioners herein to appear before the trial Court in person on 16.11.1999 shall be treated as contempt of this Court. Let a copy of this judgment along with the records be sent to the trial Court per special messenger forthwith. 10. I have been informed during the course of arguments that Gautam Sinha, one of the accused-petitioners, is employed as Assistant Engineer; Advance Planning, Public Works Department of the Govt. of Bihar, Punaichak, Patna. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, opposite New Secretariat, Patna to consider the desirability of placing Gautam Sinha under suspension during pendency of the trial.