JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both these quashing applications and learned counsel for the State. 2. Although the complainant had appeared earlier through counsel but nobody has appeared on her behalf to contest the prayer of the petitioners to quash the criminal case against them filed by the complainant bearing Complaint Case No. 399/ 1997 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram leading to Sasaram P.S. Case No. 303/97 dated 3.6.1997. In one of the quashing application preferred by Ram Dulari Gupta (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 19840/1998) the prayer is to quash the cognizance order dated 26.5.1997 whereas in other quashing application the prayer is to quash the order dated 5.1.99 passed by a Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sasaram in G.R. Case No. 1010/97/TR 1573/98 whereby the petition for discharge filed on behalf of accused persons was rejected. 3. From the petition of complaint and the relevant materials including the F.l.R. which is basis of complaint petition, it is clear that the dispute relates to alleged torture of one Punam Gupta sister of the complainant Sushil Kumar Gupta by her in-laws and husband Ghanshyam Gupta. According to the allegations the cruelty and abuse etc. are made with a view to obtain further dowry by way of a car and Rs. 2,00,000/- after the marriage had been solemnized. The complaint petition discloses that on pressure a Maruti Car was given as a gift but the ownership remained in the name of the brother of Punam Gupta but the papers of ownership were handed over to Punam Gupta but still the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) continue and hence the complaint petition was filed on 26.5.97. 4. On behalf of petitioners it is sub-mitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition are false and fabricated and made only to counter the case of the accused Ghanshyam Gupta, husband of Punam Gupta which was filed on 22.5.1995 seeking divorce on various grounds in the competent court at Kanpur. It has been submitted that instead of contesting the said divorce case the complainant side allowed ex-parte decree dated 5.5.1997 and then filed the present complaint case to put pressure upon the petitioner not to opt for divorce. It has been submitted that instead of contesting the said divorce case the complainant side allowed ex-parte decree dated 5.5.1997 and then filed the present complaint case to put pressure upon the petitioner not to opt for divorce. It has further been shown that the High Court of Allahabad initially interfered with the ex- parte decree and remitted the case back for decision on merit after contest but when the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar decreed the claim for divorce on payment of a lump sum alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the First Appeal bearing no. 307/01 preferred by Punam Gupta did not find favour and the Allahabad High Court confirmed the decree for divorce but enhanced the permanent alimony of Rs. 6,00,000/- for Punam Gupta and further a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for her children. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the said judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 9th October, 2002 (Annexure-5) has not been set aside and therefore when this Court wanted the alimony to be paid to Punam Gupta, the petitioner produced before this Court the alimony amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- through a bank draft and also Rs. 3,36,000/- as interest for delay in payment of that amount. Unfortunately, as the earlier order passed in these cases discloses, the Punam Gupta refused to accept Rs. 8,00,000/- from her counsel and the demand draft had to be given back to counsel for the petitioner. On such development the amount of Rs. 3,36,000/-, by way of interest also remained with the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when the parties have now got divorce and are no longer required to live together, it would be against the interest of justice to allow the criminal case to proceed any further merely on allegation of torture by the husband or the in-laws when the divorce case filed by the accused/husband has been decreed and not only the divorce has become final but from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Annexure-5) it is also apparent that the husband has entered into second marriage and has two children from such wedlock. 6. Because of the conduct of Punam Gupta the efforts of this Court to ensure that she would get permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest of Rs. 6. Because of the conduct of Punam Gupta the efforts of this Court to ensure that she would get permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest of Rs. 3,36,000/- could not succeed, hence she will now be required to pursue her remedy to get the dues of permanent alimony in accordance with law. However; in the facts of the case there appears substance in the submission that the allegations of torture cannot be relied when the claim for divorce by the husband has been allowed and further when it is evident that the alleged Maruti Car was found to be in the name of complainant husband (sic) who produced the papers of ownership and has obtained release of the vehicle seized by the police. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the interest of justice, the prayer made in these quashing applications are allowed. The criminal proceeding in question against the petitioners is quashed.