Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 5.1.2006 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in Complaint Case No. 836/05 thereby cognizance under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and other family members. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2. 3. The petitioner is the husband of opposite party No. 2. It appears that three cases were filed by the parties against each other. The petitioner filed Matrimonial Case No. 42/05 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and thereafter opposite party No. 2 filed two cases : one Matrimonial Case No. 2/05 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the present criminal case bearing Complaint Case No. 836/05. However, later on both of them came to terms and compromised all three cases. Except this, other two cases i.e. Matrimonial Case Nos. 42/05 and 2/05 have already been disposed of in terms of compromise. However, learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate did not take notice of compromise. Therefore, this petition has been filed for quashing of cognizance order. 4. In course of hearing both parties were directed to appear personally in chamber for settlement of their differences. The petitioner agreed to keep opposite party No. 2 but opposite party No. 2 did not agree to live with the petitioner on the ground of fresh torture meted out by in-laws after agreement arrived at the time of compromise, which is Anexure-A to the courter-affidavit. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party No. 2 has one more sister, Poonam Devi, who is also married. Both sisters are in clutch of their parents and at the instance of their parents they used to file cases against their in-laws in order to extort money. In support it, Annexures 6 and 7 have been filed. It is further submitted that this case was also filed to extort money etc. from in-laws and when she got money she refused to compromise on false plea. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 supported the order in question and submitted that it is true that all three cases were compromised between the parties. It is further submitted that this case was also filed to extort money etc. from in-laws and when she got money she refused to compromise on false plea. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 supported the order in question and submitted that it is true that all three cases were compromised between the parties. However, opposite party No. 2 refused to accept the compromise on plea of fresh torture meted out to her by the petitioner and her family members. 7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2. Perused the annexures filed by the petitioner. 8. On perusal of Ekrarnama, which is Annexure-A, it is quite apparent that it is not a case of torture of opposite party No. 2 at the hands of her in-laws rather it is a case of torture of in-laws by opposite party No. 2. The in-laws were forced to accept the compromise out of fear of criminal prosecution. In Ekrarnama the in-laws were forced to agree to meet several illegal demands of the opposite party No. 2. The terms mentioned in the Ekrarnama are oppressive which show the conduct of opposite party No. 2. 9. So far merit of case is concerned, the allegation contained in the complaint petition is of general nature. The case has been actually filed to extract illegal demands from her husband and other in-laws. 10. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The order, taking cognizance dated 5.1.2006 is hereby quashed.