Judgment 1. The Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the entire proceeding in Kadamkuan/Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 622/06 including the FIR which has been registered for the offence punishable under Ss. 494, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Such FIR has been drawn on the transmission of the copy of the complaint Case No. 1508(c)/06 from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. There is allegation to this effect in the complaint of opposite party no. 2 Reeta Kumari that her marriage with accused Anish Ranjan (petitioner no. 1) was solemnised on 6.3.1999 at Ashiyana Road, Police Colony, Patna by observance of Hindu rites and rituals and thereafter she came down to her matrimonial home with her husband at 102, Shiva Apartment, Kankarbagh. Her father made entire expenses of marriage even beyond his limit. After marriage she also spent some time with her husband and thereafter her husband went to Bombay, the place of his posting, with the assurance that she would also join him in Bombay later on. She also expressed her desire to life with her husband in Bombay with which accused no. 4 Asha Rani Mishra, second wife of Dr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, i.e., her step mother-in-law, made demand of one flat in Bombay and a car as condition precedent for her living with her husband. The demand was also supported by all the family members including her husband and thereafter her torture commenced due to non-fulfilment of such demand, both mental and physical. 3. Vinay Kumar Mishra, i.e., her step mother-in-law, made demand of one flat in Bombay and a car as condition precedent for her living with her husband. The demand was also supported by all the family members including her husband and thereafter her torture commenced due to non-fulfilment of such demand, both mental and physical. 3. It has been further alleged as a sequence of which accused persons named in the complaint petition hatched up a plan to obtain a divorce decree against the complainant and in this way her husband came down to Patna in April, 2001 and lived with the complainant for some days and during his stay at Patna her husband in collusion with other accused persons obtained her signature on some blank papers on the pretext that her such signature would be used as a nominee of her husband and also for other purpose in her interest but accused persons got a divorce case filed being Matrimonial Case No. 207/2001 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, giving wrong address of the complainant although at that time she was living in her matrimonial house but such fact was suppressed by them and they played fraud upon the court as well as on the complainant by using such signature of the complainant, as stated above, which was subsequently suspected by learned Principal Judge, Patna but inspite of that accused persons got an ex parte decree of divorce on 6.9.2002 surreptitiously against th.e complainant without serving any summons as also without giving any opportunity of hearing to the complainant. Accused persons kept silence and did not disclose about the ex parte divorce decree till expiry of period of limitation for filing appeal so as to deter her from not filing any petition in order to set aside the ex parte decree and thereafter accused no. 3, i.e., her father-in-law with the help of his friend, accused no. 5, i.e., Siya Ram Singh, (who is also petitioner here), who is an antisocial element, keeping the complainant in dark, met her father. 4. Thereafter, her father was called in the clinic of her father-in-law on 31.1.2003 at Kankarbagh and disclosed about the divorce decree and also extended threat not to pursue further with the matter otherwise be ready to face dire consequence. 4. Thereafter, her father was called in the clinic of her father-in-law on 31.1.2003 at Kankarbagh and disclosed about the divorce decree and also extended threat not to pursue further with the matter otherwise be ready to face dire consequence. Thereafter father of the complainant rushed to the court and obtained relevant papers from the Family Court, Patna and came to know about passing of the ex parte divorce decree and, as such, a petition for setting aside the ex parte order of divorce was filed. The complainant also filed a complaint before O.C. Mahila Koshang, Kotwali, who registered the case bearing Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 178 of 2003 against accused nos. 1 to 4, who happen to be her husband, second wife of her husband, Dr. Vinay Kumar Mishra and Asha Rani Mishra and the police after investigation found the allegation made by her true and, accordingly, submitted charge-sheet under Ss. 498A, 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also passed order of cognizance accordingly and transferred the case, which is pending in the court of SDJM Patna. 5. The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice to her husband not to marry again during her life time and also filed an injunction petition in the said Matrimonial court praying therein to restrain her husband from remarrying till disposal of the Misc. case, which is still pending. In the said Misc. case a prayer was also made to serve interrogatory on her husband as to whether he has married again with another girl if so details of the same was required but her husband evaded to reply. The matter is still pending for hearing. The complainant also filed a petition for maintenance in the said Misc. case which was allowed and, accordingly, the learned Principal Judge directed to pay rupees ten thousand per month as maintenance to the complainant with arrear and also directed to pay cost of litigation vide order dated 2.8.2005. 6. Husband of the complainant, i.e., petitioner no. 1 moved against said order of maintenance in the Hon ble High Court and filed civil revision no. 1599 of 2005 where he had disclosed and admitted regarding his marriage and also maintaining his present wife. 6. Husband of the complainant, i.e., petitioner no. 1 moved against said order of maintenance in the Hon ble High Court and filed civil revision no. 1599 of 2005 where he had disclosed and admitted regarding his marriage and also maintaining his present wife. From the aforesaid facts it was made clear that accused persons in conspiracy with each other and also by playing fraud upon the court as well as the complainant, who is legally wedded wife of accused Anish Ranjan and during her life time got remarried with another girl for dowry, which is void and illegal and for such facts also accused persons are liable for punishment for committing offences under Ss. 494 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.P.R for the State. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 Anish Ranjan is the husband whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the in-laws of the complainant opposite party and petitioner no. 4 is nowhere related with the family of either of the parties but he has also been implicated in this case. Further submission is that husband filed a matrimonial case no. 207 of 2001 for dissolution of his marriage in the court of Principal Judg, Family Court, Patna and despite filing of appearance opposite party no. 2 did not contest by filing any written statement, as a result of which matter was heard ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 6.9.2002 wherein matrimonial knot in between petitioner no. 1 and complainant was dissolved. No appeal was preferred against the order of ex parte order in respect of dissolution of marriage during statutory period of limitation but after lapse of five months the opposite party filed misc. case no. 2/03 under Or. 9, R. 13 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte order. The court below admitted the petition subject to limitation. 9. It has also been submitted that complainant had earlier instituted a police case bearing Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 178/03 u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 in which they were granted anticipatory bail. 10. The court below admitted the petition subject to limitation. 9. It has also been submitted that complainant had earlier instituted a police case bearing Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 178/03 u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 in which they were granted anticipatory bail. 10. In that view of the matter, ingredients so as to attract Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code are lacking in view of the fact that at the time when such marriage was solemnised there did not exist any relationship between them as husband and wife and so the very continuance of the proceeding will amount to an abuse of process of law and reliance has been placed in a case decided by Hon ble Apex Court in State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 Reeta Kumari, has urged for dismissal of the present application with the advancement of plea that ex parte order was passed regarding dissolution of their marriage and since 6.9.2002 it was sealed and signed on 13.9.2002 but on getting such information the opposite party filed misc. case for setting aside order in respect of dissolution of her marriage and the petitioner no. 1 after knowledge of such filing of the petition and after filing of rejoinder married another lady second time and, as such, due to that second marriage of the petitioner husband, she had to file complaint case before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and on the basis of such complaint FIR of Kankarbagh RS. Case No. 622/06 under Ss. 494 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged. 12. Several decision on behalf of both the parties in respect of their respective contention have been cited. On the one hand, assertion of the petitioner is that such marriage which is now admitted fact of petitioner no. 1 with a lady was solemnised after decree of dissolution of his marriage passed by competent court. But it has been submitted by learned counsel for opposite party that such ex parte order of dissolution of marriage If challenged just after knowledge of the aggrieved wife does not permit her husband to marry hurriedly in the manner with which present facts and circumstances have been brought on the record. 13. But it has been submitted by learned counsel for opposite party that such ex parte order of dissolution of marriage If challenged just after knowledge of the aggrieved wife does not permit her husband to marry hurriedly in the manner with which present facts and circumstances have been brought on the record. 13. It is a simple matter regarding continuance of the investigation by the police on the basis of facts disclosed in the complaint petition for which FIR was drawn. The investigation would reveal everything and for that it would not be desirable at this stage to stop the process of investigation and thereby specialised agency for investigation of the Government to collect material and place it before the court for due consideration and passing appropriate order in accordance with law. 14. In the facts and circumstances, it would not be proper at this stage to interfere with the process of investigation and thereby quashing of the FIR. The petition, thus, stands dismissed.