JUDGMENT ByCourt - This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1410 of 2000 under Section 498A of the I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 2. It appears that complainant (who is father of Halima Bano, Respondent no. 3) has filed a complaint alleging therein that petitioners were torturing Halima Bano and demanding Rs. 20,000/-and one motorcycle as dowry. It appears that learned Magistrate conducted inquiry and examined complainant and his witnesses and then took cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. It appears that Halima Bano was not examined by the learned Magistrate in course of inquiry. 3. It is submitted that at the time of filing of complaint Halima Bano was residing at Bilaspur along with her husband and leading a happy marital life. It is further submitted that she filed a complaint petition before Judicial agistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur, wherein she deposed that the allegations made by her father regarding torture and demand of dowry by petitioners are false. Accordingly, petitioners challenged entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 1410 of 2000 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 4. It appears that during the pendency of this case Halima Bano, Respondent no. 3, appeared and filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, at paragraph no. 4, she clearly stated that she is living peacefully with her husband at Village-Simartal, P.S. Koni, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) where her husband employed. She further stated that after marriage she is living in her sasural and she was never harassed and / or tortured by her husband or inmates of in-laws family. 5. It is submitted by Sri Sohail Anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in view of the statement of Respondent no. 3 as contained in Annexure-3, as well as in the counter affidavit, it is clear that petitioners never tortured her for demand of dowry. Under the said circumstance, no offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is made out. 6. Sri Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the aforesaid submission as no counter affidavit filed by Respondent no. 2. He also submits that since Respondent no. 3 appeared and stated on oath that she was not tortured by petitioners then offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is not made out. 7. 6. Sri Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the aforesaid submission as no counter affidavit filed by Respondent no. 2. He also submits that since Respondent no. 3 appeared and stated on oath that she was not tortured by petitioners then offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is not made out. 7. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly present case filed by complainant (Respondent no. 2) alleging therein that petitioners used to torture Respondent no. 3 for demand of dowry. From perusal of order sheet of C.P. Case No. 1410 of 2000, I find that during inquiry Halima Bano, wife of petitioner no. 4, had not been examined and the court below took cognizance of the offence merely on the statement of complainant and three other witnesses. From perusal of annexure-3, it appears that when Halima Bano came to know about the filing of complaint by her father at Dhanbad, she felt herself defamed in the eyes of members of her in-laws family, thus, constrained with the same, she she filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate, Class, Bilaspur at Chhattisgarh. She categorically stated before Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur that she was never tortured by her husband and inmates of in-laws family for demand of dowry. In the counter affidavit Halima Bano (Respondent no. 3) reiterated aforesaid statement at paragraph nos. 4 & 5. At Paragraph no. 3 of the counter affidavit, she categorically states that since she was never tortured and / or harassed by her in-laws family the complaint case bearing C.P. Case No. 1410 of 2000 filed by her father be quashed. 8. In view of aforesaid statement of Respondent no. 3 (wife of petitioner no. 4), I find that no offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is made out and the father of Halima Bano has filed a frivolous case against the petitioners with a view to harass them. Under the said circumstance, in my view, continuation of aforesaid proceeding is an abuse of the process of court. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this application is allowed and entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 1410 of 2000 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is hereby quashed.