Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order taking cognizance dated 6.12.2005 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in C.A.No. 2667/04 thereby and thereunder the court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appeared on behalf of opposite Party no. 2 in spite of valid service of notice. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the marriage of the complainant with petitioner no. 1 took place about twenty years back in the year 1986. The complainant filed a case under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 25M/86. The case was ultimately compromised and the same was dismissed on compromise vide order dated 11.12,1986. In that compromise petition it has been specifically admitted by the complainant that divorce had already taken place between the complainant and the petitioner no.1 and thereafter they began to live separtately. It was also agreed upon between them that both the parties would have right to marry again after passing of Iddat period. It has been further submitted that after, compromise of the case instituted under Sec.125 Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant remarried with another person and began to live with him, in the year 2002, which is the year of occurrence, the complainant was not living with the petitioner no.1. The entire case is false and baseless. The same has been filed with ulterior and oblique motive just in order to extort money and take undue advantage. In support of submission, learned counsel filed a certified copy of the order dated 11.12.1986 along with the compromise petition as well as annexure-4, the affidavit of the complainant admitting about her own remarriage and also annexure-5, the certificate of Mukhia showing that the complainant is a divorcee having red card. 4. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the documents filed by them. On perusal of the compromise petition filed as back as in the year 1986, when the case was instituted under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is quite clear that divorce took place in between the complainant and petitioner no.1 in the year 1986. Thereafter they began to live separately. On perusal of the compromise petition filed as back as in the year 1986, when the case was instituted under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is quite clear that divorce took place in between the complainant and petitioner no.1 in the year 1986. Thereafter they began to live separately. Not only it, after compromise the complainant remarried with another person. Therefore, apparently the allegations levelled against the petitioners do not appear probable and it has got no grain of truth. The prosecution of the petitioners on such allegations having no grain of truth is apparently abuse of process of court. 5. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.12.2005 is hereby quashed.