Judgment 1. One of the accused of Complaint Case No. 993(C) of 2006 has filed this application for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 27.7.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby cognizance has been taken against all the accused, five in number, under Sections 323/504/379 I.P.C. 2. One Tunni Devi, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, on whom notice in the admission matter was validly served, and who has chosen not to appear to contest this application, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging that the complainant is the daughter-in-law of accused no. 2. Hari Lal Sao alias Dhuri Sao, and Bhaujai of accused no.1, Ramayan Sao (the petitioner herein) and daughter-in-law of Sukhni Devi, accused no. 3. The allegation against the accused persons is of having tortured the complainant, both physically and mentally, soon after the marriage. It was also alleged that her husband has a mere scooter repairing shop and from the income thereof he has to meet the expenditure of her entire family and accused no.1, Ramayan Sao, was her dewar and that all accused persons connived between themselves always taunted the complainant for being Banj and not producing a child. She was also alleged to be characterless and when she and her husband objected to the same they were abused and assaulted. It was also alleged that all the accused persons have recently, in execution of conspiracy !o deprive the complainant from her share of the ancestral joint property, had lodged a false case against her and her husband being Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 289 of 2006 under Sections 341, 323, 379/34 I.P.C. and wherein they were granted regular bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. It was also alleged that the complainant had brought Rs. 50,000/- from her naiher by mortgaging her all ornaments, for manufacturing/constructing the building and gave the same to her father-in-law. It is also alleged that all the accused persons forcibly entered into her house, caught her Anchal from the front of her body in order to outrage her modesty and accused no. 4 snatched a golden chain worth Rs. 5,000/- from her neck and accused no. 2, Hiralal Sao assaulted and abused her which was also done by accused nos. 3, 4 and 5 and when her husband intervened, all the accused persons also assaulted him. 4 snatched a golden chain worth Rs. 5,000/- from her neck and accused no. 2, Hiralal Sao assaulted and abused her which was also done by accused nos. 3, 4 and 5 and when her husband intervened, all the accused persons also assaulted him. There was further allegation of accused Hiralal Sao not distributing the joint family property and had retained all her ornaments. 3. It appears that the complaint petition was transmitted to the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under Section 192(1) Cr.P.C. and after holding an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance, as stated above, was taken. 4. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by way of a counter blast to the case filed by him being Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 289 of 2006 under Sections 341, 323, 379/34 I.P.C. against the complainant and her husband, Lal Babu Sao, which was pending in the Court of Sri Shashi Bhushan Niraj, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, and a chargesheet has been submitted therein. It is also submitted that the petitioner had filed an Informatory Petition No. 952(M) of 2006 against the complainant and others in respect of threats advanced by the complainant and others to falsely implicate him in a false case. Referring to the recital in the complaint case, it was sought to be submitted that the complainant was separated from the petitioner and others and there was no question of partition of ancestral and joint family property. 5. The fact of the petitioner having filed a criminal case and informatory petition against the complainant are his defence and that by itself cannot be a ground for quashing the order taking cognizance in the instant complaint case. 6. No point of law is involved and this Court in exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be loath in quashing cognizance which has been duly taken following an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and that too when there is no material illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order. 7. In my opinion, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is misconceived and is dismissed.