Order This application, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed for quashing the order 9.9.2008 passed by the Court of Sri S. Kaushar, judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 2845 of 2006 Trial No. 2157 of 2008, summoning the accused petitioners, on inquiry under Section 202 of tile Criminal Procedure Code, finding prima facie case under Sections 323/448/504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts, leading to this application, are that the complainant-opposite party no. 2, Manish Kumar, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No. 2845 of 2006, against the six accused persons including the petitioners, with the contention that he has filed the Divorce Case, numbered as Matrimonial Case. No. 133 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, on 9.8.2005. On knowing about the said Matrimonial Case, all the accused persons including the petitioners armed with lathi, danda and rod came at the house of his father, who is a Senior Advocate, and started to abuse showing the paper of divorce. At that time, his father was doing the work behind the house after locking the grill of the house. All the accused persons including the petitioners entered into the house breaking the lock of the grill and started to assault the complainant-opposite party no. 2. The accused-petitioner no. 1, Madhu Gupta and the accused-petitioner no. 2, Rabindra Nath Gupta, snatched the gold chain from the neck of the complainant opposite party no. 2 and ordered to kill him. Thereafter, all the accused persons including the petitioners started to assault him again with an intention to kill. On raising 'hulla' to save, his father rushed there and tried to save him but the accused-petitioner no.1, Madhu Gupta, also assaulted his father through slipper and tore the cloth. It is also alleged that the accused no. 6, Md. Asfi, damaged the television and threatened his father for dire consequences, if the case will be lodged about the occurrence and, thereafter, all the accused persons including the petitioners fled away. At that time, the accused no. 3, Sweety Gupta, the wife of the complainant-opposite party no. 2, Manish Kumar, took away all her personal belongings. On the next date, the matter was reported to the police but the police refused to register the case. 3. At that time, the accused no. 3, Sweety Gupta, the wife of the complainant-opposite party no. 2, Manish Kumar, took away all her personal belongings. On the next date, the matter was reported to the police but the police refused to register the case. 3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint petition by the complainant-opposite party no. 2, Manish Kumar, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, out of six accused, named in the complaint petition, the accused-petitioners, were summoned through the impugned order dated 9.9.2008 finding the prima facie case under Sections 323, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are none else but the mother in-law and father-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no. 2, Manish Kumar and much prior to the filing of the complaint petition by the complainant-opposite party no. 2, on the basis of the written report of the accused-petitioner no. 2, Rabindra Nath Gupta, Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 281 of 2005 was instituted on 21.8.2005 under Sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act regarding the occurrence of torture and harassment to his daughter, Sweety Gupta, named as accused no. 3 in the complaint petition, for demand of dowry and removing her from the Sasural house after snatching her personal belongings against the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and his parents. In that case, the prayers for anticipatory bail of the complainant-opposite party no. 2, Manish Kumar, have been rejected upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and due to that reason with oblique motive, Chandra Shushan Prasad, the father of the complainant-opposite party no. 2, who is Senior Advocate in Civil Court, Muzaffarpur, got filed the present complaint case through the complainant-opposite party no. 2, so that the petitioners may not pursue the case of Muzafarpur Town P.S. Case No. 281 of 2005 and also could not create any hindrance to succeed in divorce case as alleged in the complaint petition of the complainant-opposite party no. 2. It is also contended that from the complaint petition itself, it is clear that regarding the alleged occurrence of 16.8.2005, the present complaint case has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no. 2. It is also contended that from the complaint petition itself, it is clear that regarding the alleged occurrence of 16.8.2005, the present complaint case has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 on 26.12.2006, after about 16 months only to take defence in Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 281 of 2005, as lodged for causing cruelty, harassment and removing the accused no. 3, Sweety Gupta, by the complainant opposite party no. 2 and his family members on 15.8.2005 after snatching her personal belongings. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State, submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, has rightly summoned the accused-petitioners on perusal of the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses as examined in course of the inquiry and there is no illegality in the impugned order for interference with the same at this stage. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and it is also apparent from the complaint petition that for the occurrence alleged to be taken place on 16.8.2005, the complaint case has been filed on 26.12.2006. The F.I.R. of Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 281 of 2005, Annexure-2 to this application, disclosed that the F.I.R. has been lodged under Sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of the written report of the petitioner no. 2, Rabindra Nath Gupta, causing cruelty and harassment of his daughter, Sweety Gupta, the accused no. 3 to the complaint petition, for demand of dowry and also removing her from Sasural house after snatching her personal belongings on 15.8.2005 by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and his parents . It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that on the next date, i.e., 16.8.2005, the petitioner no. 2, Rabindra Nath Gupta, approached the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and his• parents to know about the cause of removal of his daughter, Sweety Gupta, on snatching her personal belongings. The complaint petition filed on behalf of the complainant opposite party no.2 itself, disclosed about the filing of the divorce case by him against his wife, Sweety Gupta, daughters of accused-petitioners. 7. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be exercised very sparingly in rare cases for quashing the prosecution. The complaint petition filed on behalf of the complainant opposite party no.2 itself, disclosed about the filing of the divorce case by him against his wife, Sweety Gupta, daughters of accused-petitioners. 7. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be exercised very sparingly in rare cases for quashing the prosecution. In case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [A.I.R. 1992 SC 604], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised, but noted the seven categories of cases wherein such power should be exercised, out of which one is where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner no. 2 has lodged the F.I.R. about causing cruelty and harassment and removing his daughter, Sweety Gupta, accused no. 3 to the complaint petition, from her sasural caused at the hands of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and his parents. Prior to the filing of the complaint petition, the divorce case is also filed by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 against his wife, Sweety Gupta, daughter of the petitioners. In that situation, it is quite improbable that the petitioners would go at the house of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and would commit the alleged offence, as detailed in the complaint petition. As such, the complaint petition, filed by the complainant-opposite party no. 2, appears to be with oblique motive or wreaking vengeance on the accused-petitioners. 9. In that situation, it is quite improbable that the petitioners would go at the house of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and would commit the alleged offence, as detailed in the complaint petition. As such, the complaint petition, filed by the complainant-opposite party no. 2, appears to be with oblique motive or wreaking vengeance on the accused-petitioners. 9. Under the aforesaid facts and the circumstances, the impugned summoning order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Court of Sri S. Kaushar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 2845 of 2006 Serial No. 2157 of 2008 appears to be an abuse of the process of the court. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Court of Sri S. Kaushar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 2845 of 2006 Serial No. 2157 of 2008 is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.