ORDER D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 16.3.2001, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 312, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner and other co- accused persons on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant-opposite party No. 2. The prayer also includes an order for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of the aforesaid order of cognizance, which is pending in the court of the learned Sri Ramjit Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 796 of 1999/1479/2000. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 is the legally married wife of one of the accused Baij Nath Kumbhakar. After solemnization of the marriage on 10.5.1996, the complainant was taken to her matrimonial house where she lived in the company of her husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law besides sister-in-law. Soon after the marriage, the complainant began to be subjected to ill-treatment, cruelty and neglect by her husband and in-laws over demand for dowry and against which she had filed a complaint case bearing C.P. case No. 796 of 1999 in which cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken by the trial court. However, a compromise was effected between the spouses and pursuant to the compromise, a bond was executed by and between the parties on 26.2.2006, where-after conjugal relations were again resumed between the complainant and her husband and she began to live at her matrimonial house once again since 13.3.2000. During her sojourn in the company of her husband at her matrimonial house, she had conceived his child, bill this was not relished by her husband and in-laws, who began to subject her again to ill-treatment, cruelty and neglect and even physical assault, as a result of which, she sustained severe bleeding injuries. On her physical condition becoming serious, it was at the instance of the neighbouring residents that the complainant was admitted to the nursing home, but even at the nursing home, neither her husband nor any member of his family attended her. On her physical condition becoming serious, it was at the instance of the neighbouring residents that the complainant was admitted to the nursing home, but even at the nursing home, neither her husband nor any member of his family attended her. However, again on being pressurized by the neighbouring residents, the husband brought her back to his home on 20.9.2000, although her health condition had further deteriorated. On receiving information regarding the complainants ailing health condition, her father came to her matrimonial house and took her along with him on 23.9.2000 for her medical treatment and after medical check up, she was advised to take rest and undergo prescribed treatment. On being neglected by her husband and in-laws, the complainants father took her to his own house where she continued availing medical treatment under the doctors. Subsequently, on improvement of her health, the complainant filed an application before the trial court in the aforementioned complaint case on 10.11.2000 explaining in detail the conduct of the accused persons and the physical and mental torture which she had suffered at their hands and had prayed for cancellation of the bail granted earlier to the accused persons. However, the learned Magistrate while refusing to cancel bail, had observed that the complainant may file a fresh case for the fresh cause of action. The complainant filed thereafter her fresh complaint case which was registered vide C.P. Case No. 1479 of 2000 in which, after conducting inquiry under Section 202 Cr. PC, the learned Judicial Magistrate, to whom the case was transferred by the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, found a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 323, 312, 498A/34 IPC against three accused persons including the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 16.3.2001, had directed issuance of summons against the accused persons. 3. PC, the learned Judicial Magistrate, to whom the case was transferred by the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, found a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 323, 312, 498A/34 IPC against three accused persons including the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 16.3.2001, had directed issuance of summons against the accused persons. 3. The aforesaid order of the learned trial court and the order of cognizance has been challenged by the petitioner basically on the ground that both the orders are totally bad, both on the points of law as well as on facts and it has been passed without application of judicial mind at all since the learned court below has failed to consider that the earlier complaint in which cognizance for the same offences on identical allegation, was taken by the court, was still pending and therefore, the second complaint on the same allegation and facts, cannot be maintained and its continuance would be an abuse of the process of the court. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been made an accused in both complaints merely because she happens to be the mother-in-law of the complainant, even though, the allegations against her are not specific with reference to the date or particular conduct on the part of the petitioner which could invite a ground to proceed against her for the aforementioned offences. Elaborating further, the learned Counsel submits that the allegation of demand of dowry is totally vague inasmuch as no specific amount of demand has been stated, nor any specific article mentioned as part of the demand. Likewise, no specific date on which the complainant was subjected to any act of cruelty, either physical or mental by the present petitioner, has been mentioned. 5. Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2, has contested the claim of the petitioner and has submitted that the instant application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is not maintainable. Explaining the facts of the case, learned Counsel submits that after her marriage with her husband, the complainant was taken to her matrimonial house. Shortly after the marriage, the complainant began to suffer ill treatment at the hands of her husband and in-laws including the petitioner who happens to be her mother-in-law. Explaining the facts of the case, learned Counsel submits that after her marriage with her husband, the complainant was taken to her matrimonial house. Shortly after the marriage, the complainant began to suffer ill treatment at the hands of her husband and in-laws including the petitioner who happens to be her mother-in-law. Consequently, the complainant had filed her complaint case against her husband and in-laws which was registered before the court below vide C.P. Case No. 796 of 1999. A compromise was effected between the spouses, where-after she was taken back to her matrimonial house where she led conjugal life with her husband and during the period of eight months of her stay in the company of her husband at her matrimonial house, she had conceived, but soon after, she began to suffer the same kind of mental and physical torture at the hands of her husband and in-laws despite the fact she was in her advance stage of her pregnancy. Ultimately, it was at her paternal house, where she was brought by her father, that she had availed proper medical treatment and later, gave birth to a male child, but neither her husband nor any member of his family ever visited to see the child. Learned Counsel adds that though, the complainant had always desired to live with her husband at her matrimonial house, but it was the present petitioner who being the mother-in-law, was instrumental in creating hostile situations causing bias and prejudice against the complainant leading to her ill-treatment at the hands of her husband. 6. The points for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, intervention of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the criminal proceeding against the petitioner including the order dated 16.3.2001 as passed by the learned trial court, is called for. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has advanced two grounds in support of his claim for quashing the criminal proceeding. The first ground is that by instituting the second complaint case on the same facts and allegation, the complainant has abused the process of the court and, therefore allowing the second case to be continued, would perpetrate gross injustice upon the petitioner. The first ground is that by instituting the second complaint case on the same facts and allegation, the complainant has abused the process of the court and, therefore allowing the second case to be continued, would perpetrate gross injustice upon the petitioner. The second ground is that even the entire allegations, as contained in the complaint petition, do not constitute any offence under Sections 498A, 323, 312 and 34 IPC against the petitioner since the allegations against her are vague, unspecific and omnibus in nature. Learned Counsel refers in support of his contention to the judgment of Gauhati High Court in the case of Amal Chand Lahkar v. Smt. Venu Sharma reported in 2000 Cr. L.J. 4098. The aforesaid case relates to the F.I.R. which was registered for the offence under Section 504 IPC. While allowing the prayer for quashing the F.I.R., it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the allegation contained in the F.I.R. even taking on its value, do not constitute any offence and furthermore, the allegations in the F.I.R. are too vague without mentioning any date of occurrence and other particulars to constitute offence under Section 504 IPC. In the present case, on perusal of the complaint petition being C.P. Case No. 1479 of 2000 read with the statements of the complainant and her witnesses recorded on solemn affirmation, it cannot be said that the allegations against the petitioner is totally vague, unspecific and without reference to the specific period when the offence was allegedly perpetrated on her. In paragraph-4 of the complaint petition, it has been stated that after her marriage, she lived for about one week at her matrimonial house, where-after she along with the her husband came to the house of her parents. After four days of her stay at her parents house, she returned to her matrimonial house and it was soon after her return that demand for articles by way of dowry began to be made and the complainant began to be subjected to ill-treatment and mental cruelly by her husband and in-laws. In her statement on solemn affirmation, the complainant has expressed that the first act of assault made by the petitioner was during Durga Puja of that year when the petitioner had allegedly hurled a brass pot against the complainant causing injury on her, while the other accused persons had likewise manhandled and physically abused her. In her statement on solemn affirmation, the complainant has expressed that the first act of assault made by the petitioner was during Durga Puja of that year when the petitioner had allegedly hurled a brass pot against the complainant causing injury on her, while the other accused persons had likewise manhandled and physically abused her. The second act of ill-treatment is with reference to the demand of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- immediately after Durga Puja of the year 1996 and threatening was issued by the husband and in-laws including the petitioner that if demand is not fulfilled, they would go for a second marriage of her husband. The allegation of assault and ill-treatment to which the complainant was subjected during her stay at her matrimonial house after she was taken back pursuant to the execution of bond by her husband and her in-laws, relates to the month of September 2000 when she was again allegedly assaulted by her husband and she was not provided food and nourishment by the mother-in-law namely the present petitioner even though the complainant was in her advance stage of pregnancy. It was as a result of assault and lack of proper food and nourishment, she fell seriously ill and had to be admitted to the nursing home for her medical treatment. The judgment referred to by the petitioner does not therefore apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 7. While recording its order dated 16.3.2001 the learned court below had made a detailed observation of the facts and circumstances of the case as appearing from the allegations in the complaint petition as also in the statement of the complainant and her witnesses and had felt satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for the offence under Sections 323, 312, 498A/34 IPC against three persons namely the husband Baid Nath Kumbhakar, father-in-law Jaggannath Kumbhakar and mother-in-law Smt. Sishu Bala Devi, and thereafter had ordered for issuance of summons against them to face trial. From the same order of the learned court below, it appears that earlier, proceeding in C.P. Case No. 796 of 1999 was dropped on account of reconciliation between the spouses and undertaking given by the husband and in-laws of the complainant to restore amity and peaceful conjugal relation with the complainant. From the same order of the learned court below, it appears that earlier, proceeding in C.P. Case No. 796 of 1999 was dropped on account of reconciliation between the spouses and undertaking given by the husband and in-laws of the complainant to restore amity and peaceful conjugal relation with the complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. which deals with the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding, although offences involved were not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. PC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner explains that the aforementioned case specifically emphasizes that in cases involving matrimonial disputes, where dispute has been compromised between the spouses, it would not be proper in the interest of justice to allow continuance of the proceeding merely on the ground that the offences involved are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. PC. Learned Counsel explains further that in the instant case, the husband of the complainant had expressed his willingness to restore conjugal relation once again with his wife and for which the husband had executed a fresh bond before the trial court. The aforesaid judgment is again not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case since it bears a basic difference inasmuch as while in the case cited above, the spouses had declared that they had settled their differences by way of out of court settlement and a compromise was effected between them, in the instant case, no such settlement has been arrived, nor has the complainant acknowledges that she has compromised or settled her dispute with the accused persons. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.