JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Shri Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Shri Chittaranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the complainant and also Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned APP for the state. 2. Petitioner No. 2 Sangeeta Pandey alias Pinki Devi is the sister of Navin Sharma to whom the informant was, admittedly, married. Petitioner No. 1 Nilesh Kumar alias Nilesh Kumar Pandey is the husband of petitioner No. 2 Sangeeta Pandey alias Pinki Devi. Both of them have been summoned to stand trial for various offences including that under Section 498-A of IPC. 3. It is the written report of the informant which is the basis of the prosecution and she has alleged that the accused persons ill-treated and tortured her on different dates and at different places for bringing rupees five lacs from her parents, else she would be expelled from her matrimonial house. She stated that there was attempts both from their parents and brothers to bring the relatives of the husband and husband also to reason but that did not fructify. She also cited certain examples of ill treatment in her written report and in that connection she has stated that some ailments surfaced in February, 2007 in Ranchi and her father came and got her operated upon, but her husband did not visit her and again when she stated the aforesaid fact to her father she was threatened of being deserted by the husband who threatened to get himself married to another lady. There are some other instances of ill treatment and torture cited in the written report. Lastly, was alleged that she was expelled from her matrimonial house and was deserted in Chapra on 16.9.2007 in the evening. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to one of the admitted statements of the informant Mridula Sharma while she was deposing as a witness for herself in a matrimonial proceeding before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Misc. Case No. 14 of 2007. That evidence was recorded by the Family Court on 25th June, 2008 and it appears from paragraph 5 of that evidence that she stated that her nanad and nandoi were residing outside India and that she had the occasion of meeting them only once on 2nd October, 2007 in Patna besides meeting them on the occasion of her marriage. 5. That evidence was recorded by the Family Court on 25th June, 2008 and it appears from paragraph 5 of that evidence that she stated that her nanad and nandoi were residing outside India and that she had the occasion of meeting them only once on 2nd October, 2007 in Patna besides meeting them on the occasion of her marriage. 5. It is not disputed that petitioner Nilesh Kumar alias Nilesh Kumar Pandey was serving somewhere in the United Kingdom and was residing with petitioner No. 2 there. The attention of the Court to the above statement of the informant made by her while deposing in the Misc. proceeding was drawn only to highlight as to how frivolous a prosecution of the two petitioners the present case could be and it was submitted that this could be a fit case in which the Court should interfere as regards the prosecution of the two petitioners for the ends of justice as also to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Shri Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel for the informant has resisted the prayer and has submitted that it remains a point to be considered by this Court whether this Court should utilize that particular evidence of the informant recorded in a different proceeding for quashing the prosecution of the two petitioners. It was further contended that the conduct of the two petitioners was highly reprehensible while being granted anticipatory bail and they were directed to surrender and they did not surrender and as such, bail granted to them under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was cancelled. Shri Sinha further pleaded that the Court should issue a notice to the accused persons and the informant as well and should make attempts for reconciling the parties as it could, lastly, be a question as to what could be the fate of the informant. 7. I am fully aware of the decision of the Supreme Court and the findings recorded in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalin- gappa Kanjalgi and others, AIR 1976 SC 1947 when their lordships were laying down four conditions for quashing a proceeding. While laying down the conditions, it was recorded that a very good defence in favour of the accused or the prospect of the case ending in acquittal may not be the real reason for quashing a prosecution. While laying down the conditions, it was recorded that a very good defence in favour of the accused or the prospect of the case ending in acquittal may not be the real reason for quashing a prosecution. It was also observed that contradictory statement of witnesses could never be the ground for the Court to quash a proceeding but, when the fact comes as an admission voluntarily made by a person who had launched the prosecution of the persons like the two petitioners who, admittedly, are residing in the United Kingdom in connection with their callings, would it not be proper for the Court to interfere so as to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and, above all, to otherwise secure the ends of justice? Securing ends of justice could have a dual policy as the justice is required by the complainant and the same may also be required by the accused. It could never be the purpose of establishing the Courts and vesting judicatory powers in them to heap harassment and unnecessary hardships upon a person who could ultimately get acquitted on account of one single fact as appears stated by the informant in her deposition recorded in Miscellaneous case No. 14 of 2007. This is the admission of the informant that she did not ever meet the two petitioners except on two occasionsonce on the date of marriage and the other on 2.10.2006. She has stated in the same paragraph 5 of Annexure 4 that the two petitioners were residing outside India and thus, it appears a fit case in which the balance has to be struck for otherwise securing the ends of justice and providing the succour from the arduous prosecution. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash the proceeding initiated against the two petitioners vide order dated 12.12.2008 by allowing the present petition.