Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This is an application for and on behalf of the petitioners under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 136 of 1991, wherein cognizance has been taken against the seven accused-petitioners .above-named under Secs. 498A and 323, I.P.C., by order dated 5-10-93, passed by Mr. Y. J. Mallick, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawadah, in Complaint Case No. 136 of 1991/1356 of 1993, Ritu Kumari V/s. Ashok Kumar. 2. According to the complaint petition (Annexure 1), filed in the Court of learned CJM, Nawadah, on 8-4-91, the opposite party was married to Kishore Kumar (Petitioner No. 1), according to Hindu rites on 12-12-1988. According to the allegations, the opposite party went to sasural after her marriage. It had become regular feature with her sasural people to demand dowry of about 1 lac. In course of time, it assumed serious proportions, and she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of different sasural people who are the accused-persons. She further alleges that petitioner No. 1 threatened her that he would marry for the second time, and would desert her if the demand of dowry was not met. She had, therefore, to leave her sasural and return to her fathers place. The remaining accused-persons who are petitioners No. 2 to 7 herein, are first degree relations of petitioner No. 1, who are said to have abetted the offence. On these allegations, the aforesaid complaint petition was filed on 8-4-91. The learned CJM was pleased to transfer it to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sri Y.J. Mallick, to conduct an inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code, and ultimately passed the impugned order of cognizance. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order of cognizance, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present complaint petition (Annexure-1), and the impugned order of cognizance, constitute gross abuse of the process of the Court, inasmuch the petitioner has been repeating such attempts since 1990, she has failed on all the occasions, and does not seem to rest. In her submission, it is manifest from the materials on record including the previous judgment of this Court dated 29-1-91, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8657 of 1990 (Annexure 6), that the opposite party was really married to one Ratan Murari Prasad. In her submission, it is manifest from the materials on record including the previous judgment of this Court dated 29-1-91, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8657 of 1990 (Annexure 6), that the opposite party was really married to one Ratan Murari Prasad. She had initiated appropriate proceedings in the Court of learned District Judge Nawadah, for dissolution of her marriage with Ratan Murari Prasad. This divorce petition was filed on 14-7-88 (Annexure 2), and was decreed by judgment dated 30-6-89 (Annexure 3). Soon after the marriage of opposite party with Ratan Murari Prasad was dissolved, the opposite party had lodged an FIR against petitioner No. 1 and others alleging offences under Secs. 498-A and 323, I.P.C. and Secs. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, The police had submitted final report in the rase which was accepted by the Court on 12-12-90. The substance of the allegations in this FIR is same or similar with the complaint petition in hand. The opposite party then made a second attempt by filing a petition of complaint on 1-6-90 in the Court of learned CJM, Nawadah, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 222/1990, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawadah, wherein cognizance was taken under Sec. 493, I.P.C. against petitioner No, 1 by order dated 13-7-90. Aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 13-7-90, petitioner No. 1 had moved this Court by preferring Cr. Misc. No. 8657 of 1990 Kishore Kumar V/s. State of Bihar, which was allowed by judgment dated 29-1-91 (Annexure 6), and the prosecution was quashed. It is relevant to state that the opposite party had levelled allegations against petitioner No. 1 in that complaint case under Sec. 493, I.P.C., which, in substance, is diametrically opposite to those in the petition of complaint in hand. The allegations in the former were under Sec. 493, I.P.C. which predicates absence of a valid marriage, whereas the allegations in the present complaint petition are under Sec. 498A, I.P.C. which predicates a valid, subsisting marriage. It is relevant to state that the opposite party herein had moved the Supreme Court against the said judgment dated 29-1-91 (Annexure 6). which was registered as SLP Crl. No. 2313 of 1991, Ritu Kumari V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. and was dismissed by order dated 20-12-91 (Annexure 7). It is relevant to state that the opposite party herein had moved the Supreme Court against the said judgment dated 29-1-91 (Annexure 6). which was registered as SLP Crl. No. 2313 of 1991, Ritu Kumari V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. and was dismissed by order dated 20-12-91 (Annexure 7). The opposite party had thereafter made another attempt by filing a petition of complaint on 5-4-91 (Annexure 8), before the CJM, Nawadah, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The opposite party then filed the present petition of complaint on 8--,-91 (Annexure 1), and the impugned order of cognizance was passed on 5-10-93, against the seven accused-petitioners under Secs. 498-A and 323, I.P.C.. 4. This Court is clearly of the view that the present complaint case is a gross abuse of the process of Court, It is manifest from the narration of events that the opposite party has been making repeated attempts to implicate petitioner No. 1 and other members of his family for reasons best known to her. The first and the foremost thing which attracts immediate attention in this case is the judgment dated 30-6-89 (Annexure 3), whereby the marriage of opposite party with Ratan Murari Prasad was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that there could not have been a valid marriage according to Hindu rites between the opposite party and petitioner No. 1 until 30-6-89. Therefore, on the very face of it, the allegations in the present petition of complaint against the petitioners is palpably false. The allegations in the present petition of complaint (Annexure-1), that she is the legally-married wife of petitioner No. 1 which allegedly took place on 12-12-88, is obviously false because her marriage with Ratan Murari Prasad was dissolved on 30-6-89. This obviously is a brazen attempt to implicate the petitioners in a false case. 5. The second aspect of the matter which attracts attention is that the opposite party has levelled diametrically opposite allegations in the aforesaid Complaint Case No. 222 of 1990, which was quashed by this Court by its judgment dated 29-1-91 (Annexure 6). It is thus manifest that having failed in her attempt to implicate the petitioners in general, and petitioner No. 1 in particular, with respect to alleged offence under Sec. 493 I.P.C., she started the present prosecution under Sec. 498-A. 6. It is thus manifest that having failed in her attempt to implicate the petitioners in general, and petitioner No. 1 in particular, with respect to alleged offence under Sec. 493 I.P.C., she started the present prosecution under Sec. 498-A. 6. Learned Counsel is equally right in his submission that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case under Sec. 498-A, I.P.C., is made out. The complaint petition alleges that she was married to petitioner No. 1 on 12-12-88, which is obviously false in view of the aforesaid decree of divorce dated 30-6-89 (Annexure 3) when her marriage with Ratan Murari Prasad subsisted until 30-6-89, there is no question of her marriage with Kishore Kumar on 12-12-88. Learned Counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of Sec. 498-A for its applicability predicates a valid and subsisting marriage between the parties. The basic ingredient being completely absent in the present case, no case is made out. For the same reason the allegation of demand of dowry also fails. Thus, the genesis of the case is gone, namely, a valid and subsisting marriage between the opposite party and petitioner No. 1 herein, the further case of attrocities on her in her sasural in terms of Sec. 323, I.P.C. also fails on the very face of the complaint. 7. In the result, this quashing application is allowed, the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 136/91 Ritu Kumari V/s. Ashok Kumar and Ors. pending in the Court of Mr. Y.J. Mallick, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawadah, is hereby set aside.