ORDER Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 to oppose this quashing application. 2. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 04.07.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1094 (C) of 2001, refusing to discharge the petitioners for the offences allegedly committed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The informant –cum- complainant Tulika is the wife of one Sanjay Kumar, who is son of the petitioners 1 and 2. She filed a case before the Police alleging therein that her father-in-law and other members of the family used to mentally and physically torture her. After she got pregnant, she came to her parents house and gave birth to a child. After the child was born, she returned to her husband’s home, however, nobody bothered to change their behaviour and they continued to mentally and physically torture her. Finally, she alleges that in the month of April, 1999, her In-Laws took away all her household items and moved to M.I.G. 360, a rented accommodation. On investigation, the Investigating Officer found the case to be absolutely false. A protest petition was filed and thereafter cognizance was taken against the petitioners. 4. Evidence was led before discharge. It would be relevant to refer to the evidence of PW 3, who is the brother of the complainant and witness of the alleged torture. It has been stated at paragraph 6 that the petitioner no. 1 is living in a rented house for the past 2-3 years. The husband of the petitioner is also living in the said house. Thus, it is a accepted fact that the In-Laws are living in a rented accommodation. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners specifically refers to the fact that on 08.08.1999, the husband of the complainant had filed a divorce suit on the ground of mental torture meted out by his wife. The divorce suit was heard and finally, a decree of divorce was granted on 21.07.2004. The decree, passed in the divorce suit, has not been challenged by the Opposite Party No. 2 in any proceedings whatsoever. The divorce suit was heard and finally, a decree of divorce was granted on 21.07.2004. The decree, passed in the divorce suit, has not been challenged by the Opposite Party No. 2 in any proceedings whatsoever. The divorce was granted on the ground as mentioned in paragraph 8 which indicates that the Opposite Party No. 2 is in occupation of Rental Flat 233, whereas the husband and his family members were forced to leave Rental Flat 233 and are living in another rented accommodation MIG 360. One of the instances of torture was that the Opposite Party No. 2 had created such an atmosphere in the house and tortured her In-Laws in such a manner that they were forced to leave the house. 6. After filing of the divorce case, the present case was filed on 23.08.1999. On perusal of the entire materials in this case, it would appear that as far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned, there is absolutely no specific allegations against them. As far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the allegation is that there is a demand of Rs. One lakh as well as mental and physical torture. Surprisingly, the husband of the complainant has not been made accused in this case. It is only the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law who had been impleaded as accused. It is also to be seen that the petitioners are now admitted living in a rented accommodation M.I.G. 360, whereas the house in which the Opposite Party No. 2 is living with her brother and mother i.e. Rental Flat 233 was specifically allotted by the Government under the Housing Scheme of the Government to the petitioner no. 1. The brother of the Opposite Party No. 2 has accepted that the Opposite Party No. 2 is living in Rental Flat 233. Thus, the case of the complainant becomes unbelievable when she alleges that her In-Laws left their house after taking away her household items, especially in view of the fact that the father-in-law (petitioner no. 1) has now retired. In the circumstances, it could hardly be believed that the father-in-law would take his wife and family to live in another rented place, although he is the owner of perfectly built up space. 1) has now retired. In the circumstances, it could hardly be believed that the father-in-law would take his wife and family to live in another rented place, although he is the owner of perfectly built up space. This Court disbelieves the allegations made in the complaint petition, as the allegations cannot appeal to any person given the circumstances, facts and allegations in this case. 7. In the circumstances, the order dated 04.07.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1094 (C) of 21001 is quashed. 8. In the result, this application is allowed.