Judgment 1. Two petitioners herein who have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 1204(C)/2005 are aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2005 passed by Sri V. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhojpur at Ara, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. against the petitioners. 2. One Gita Devi filed the aforesaid complaint against the petitioners who are the parents-in-law of the complainant, inter alia, stating that her marriage with Chittaranjan Kumar was solemnized in the year, 1993 and the gauna took place in 1995 and on both occasions costly items of gifts worth Rs. one lac were given. It is said that after the gauna the complainant came to her marital home and stayed for sometime whereafter she went to Bokaro where she and her husband started living with the parents in law. The father-in-law is said to be an employee of Bokaro factory whereas her husband was unemployed and both were dependant on the father-in-law. It is also said that the parents of the complainant has given a golden chain and golden bangles worth Rs. 12,000/- which had been taken away by accused no. 2 on an understanding that the same would be given to her for wearing during festive occasions. According to the complainant the initial period of two years was spent in bliss whereafter accused persons started telling the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her father, who was a teacher in a Government school, so that her husband could be set up in a business in Bokaro itself. The complainant is said to have informed her father who manage to procure Rs. 40,000/- and gave the same to accused No. 1 at Bokaro in June, 1998 but no business for the husband was got started and instead all the money was retained by accused no. 2 and whenever the complainant mooted the topic of starting business for the husband both the accused persons would assault and taunt her and stopped her food. They also gave out that Rs. 40,000/- was not sufficient to start a business and a minimum amount of Rs. one lac was required and that she should bring the same from her father. They also gave out that Rs. 40,000/- was not sufficient to start a business and a minimum amount of Rs. one lac was required and that she should bring the same from her father. It is alleged that when the husband of the complainant objected to the demand made by the accused persons he too was assaulted and his food was stopped and eventually she and her husband were turned out from the house whereupon they came to the parental house of the complainant. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case which had been filed for putting pressure upon the petitioner so that they could continue to extend monitory benefits to the complainant and her husband, it has also been stated that the petitioner no. 1 being a retired person was living with the second wife and that the husband of the complainant was her step son and both the complainant and her husband wanted to grab all the money from his retiral benefits. It is also submitted that petitioner no. 1 had purchased some land in the name of petitioner no. 2 and the complainant and her husband being jealous thereof had decided to put pressure upon them to dispose of the same in their favour in order to grab the same. 4. The learned counsel for O.R No. 2 tried to defend the impugned order by stating that although the complainant was living with her unemployed husband in the house of the informant at Bokaro, who was supplying them with financial help from time to time his disposition towards them was not sincere. That apart in the event of the death of the two petitioners it was the husband of the complainant who would have inherited the properties of the petitioners. 5. To me on the contrary it appears to be the complainant who has attempted to put pressure on the petitioners to part with their valuable lands and other matters in favour of the husband of the complainant. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I see no reason to continue the criminal proceedings so far as the petitioners are concerned as the same would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and has to be quashed. 7. Accordingly the impugned order is quashed and the application is allowed.