Judgment 1. Heard Sri Durganand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nirbhay Kumar Singh, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although Opposite Party No. 2 had been duly served with notice and put in appearance by filing vakalatnama, none, however, appeared to contest the application at the time of hearing. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 13.1.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua in Complaint Case No. 1004 of 2006 whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences under Ss. 498(A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. According to the complainant who has been impleaded as Opposite Party No. 2 herein, his daughter, Babita was married to the petitioner no. 2 on 5.6.2001 and at the time of marriage gifts worth Rs. 75,000.00 and ornaments worth Rs. 50,000.00 were given to the daughter. It is alleged that at the time of marriage the accused persons made a demand for motorcycle and gold chain which the complainant assured to provide later on, if possible. It is alleged that the Bidai of the bride was not performed as the accused persons insisted that unless the demand was fulfilled the Gauna would not be performed. It is said that on the intervention of relatives the Gauna was eventually held after three years and the daughter went to her marital home and even on that occasion the demand was reiterated and the complainant voluntarily gifted a chain to petitioner no. 2. It is alleged that one week after the entrance of the daughter in the marital home she was subjected to torture and she was asked to quickly bring the motorcycle or Rs. 35,000.00 in lieu thereof failing which she would be ousted from the marital home. It is also said that 10-15 days later the husband left for Patna and only the petitioner no. 1 remained in the marital home. The husband is said to have returned after a month and asked his wife to go back to her paternal home since the demand had not been fulfilled and adverse comments were moving the rounds amongst his friend circle. The daughter is said to have informed the complainant who came and took away his daughter after Bidai and she lived with him for about a year. The daughter is said to have informed the complainant who came and took away his daughter after Bidai and she lived with him for about a year. Thereafter she returned to the marital home and was again subjected to torture and even when she got indisposed she was not treated. It is further alleged that the complainant in view-of the fact that the husband was working as an Advocates Clerk at Patna and his daughter would get proper treatment there brought his daughter over to Patna and found that husband was living with another lady. It has lastly been alleged that the daughter was ousted from the marital home after all her households effects were concentrated. A Panchayati was held where the petitioner no.2 refused to keep the lady unless the articles demanded were made available and when the daughter went to the marital home again she was not allowed to enter the same. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it would be apparent from a plain reading of the complaint petition that mere vague allegations have been made regarding the torture without citing any specific overtact or dates and time. It would also appear that whereas the marriage was solemnized as far back as on 5.6.2001 when the demand is said to have been made the complaint was not filed till 2.11.2006 and no explanation has been furnished for the inordinate delay in filing the complaint, lt was also submitted that no specific instances of ill treatment or mal treatment has been made. It is also stated that none of the witnesses examined at the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have attributed any accusation against petitioner no.1 and all the witnesses have narrated various versions of the story which are contradictory to each other. 5. The learned counsel further sought to point out that it was the daughter of the complainant who had left the marital home on her own accord with her brother without giving any intimation to the petitioners and all efforts to compromise the matter had proved fruitless. As a matter of fact an informatory petition bearing No. 239(M) of 2005 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 1.2.2005. When all efforts to bring the wife failed, petitioner no. As a matter of fact an informatory petition bearing No. 239(M) of 2005 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 1.2.2005. When all efforts to bring the wife failed, petitioner no. 2 filed Matrimonial Case No. 142 of 2006 before the Family Court at Patna for restitution of conjugal right which was admitted and notice was issued to the daughter of the complainant on 16.10.2006 and notwithstanding receipt of the notice she avoided appearing before the Family Court and as a counter blast the complaint case was filed on 2.11.2006. 6. Since the Opposite Party No. 2 has not appeared to contest the application, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners remain unrebutted. I have also had the occasion to peruse the complaint petition as also the evidence laid at the inquiry u/s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, copies whereof have been annexed as annexures, and therefrom it appears that a bald statement regarding torture has been made without giving any specific instances and dates and commission of any overt acts. There also appears marked discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses. It would also appear that the complaint petition was filed after receipt of notice of the Matrimonial Case and that too after a long period of five years since the marriage for which no explanation has been furnished. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution of the petitioners appears to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.