JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. By this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 10/06/2015 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) taking cognizance against the petitioners, as well as, the proceeding in C.R. Case No. 3336C/2014 u/s 495/109/34 IPC. 2. Respondent No. 1, as complainant lodged a complaint against the present petitioners alleging commission of offences u/s 406/420/495 IPC. It was alleged in the complaint, that the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 were friends since their school days and they knew each others family. In the month of March, 2009, the petitioners visited the house of the respondent No. 1 with a proposal of their daughters marriage with the son of the complainant and handed over the horoscope of their daughter for matching. After consulting the astrologer, the respondent No. 1 having found that the horoscope of his son and that of petitioners daughter did not match, expressed his inability to accept the proposal. Later on, when the petitioner No. 1 met the respondent No. 1 in a party of the officers club in the month of June, 2011, the petitioner No. 1 informed that marriage of her daughter was fixed with a London based doctor. However, later on, the petitioners informed the respondent No. 1, that the marriage of their daughter with the London based doctor was cancelled and they were looking for a groom for their daughter. One Ambika Prasad Sarma, who had many information of eligible bachelors, was requested to search for a groom for the daughter of the petitioners. Said Ambika Prasad Sarma informed the respondent No. 1 that the petitioners were interested in the son of the respondent No. 1. In the month of December, 2011, there was a birthday party, where the petitioners and respondent No. 1, as well as, the daughter of the petitioners and also the son, daughter and son-in-law of the respondent No. 1 were present. Having seen the daughter of the petitioners in the birthday party, the son-in-law of the respondent No. 1 was impressed and he proposed for marriage of the daughter of the petitioners and the son of the respondent No. 1, whereupon respondent No. 1 told that he had no objection if his son agrees. Having seen the daughter of the petitioners in the birthday party, the son-in-law of the respondent No. 1 was impressed and he proposed for marriage of the daughter of the petitioners and the son of the respondent No. 1, whereupon respondent No. 1 told that he had no objection if his son agrees. At the instance of both the families, the respective groom and bride were allowed to meet 2/3 times to know each other and ultimately the son of the respondent No. 1 agreed to the proposal of marriage with the daughter of the petitioners. Accordingly, the marriage was solemnized and after marriage, the son of the respondent No. 1 went to Japan, where he was working and after few days, the daughter of the petitioners was also sent to Japan. However, they could not pull on well together and the daughter of the petitioners came back to India and lodged a complaint against the son of the respondent No. 1 u/s 498-A/325/506 IPC. After the son of the respondent No. 1 received summons, he informed his parents. When the daughter of the petitioners lodged the complainant u/s 498-A IPC against the son of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 started to enquire about the antecedents of his daughter-in-law and came to know that she was earlier married with the London based doctor, who divorced her by a decree of divorce dated 07/12/2012 and the said fact of marriage and divorce was not disclosed to the respondent No. 1. It was also stated that he came to know that the daughter of the petitioners had extra-marital relation with one Agyat Rai Singh Suri and that was the reason for divorce by her former husband. After having collected those information, the respondent No. 1 lodged the complaint stating that they were cheated by the petitioners by not disclosing about the earlier marriage and antecedents of their daughter and therefore, the C.R. Case No. 3336C/2014 u/s 495/109/34 IPC was lodged. 3. Learned Magistrate upon consideration of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 and on examining the complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C., took cognizance against the petitioners u/s 495/109/34 IPC and issued process. 4. 3. Learned Magistrate upon consideration of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 and on examining the complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C., took cognizance against the petitioners u/s 495/109/34 IPC and issued process. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance, the petitioners have filed the instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 10/06/2015 taking cognizance as well the proceeding in the CR Case No. 3336C/2014 pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M). 5. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. AK. Bhattacharyya placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Bhajanlal, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, submits that the complaint lodged by the respondent No 1 was a counterblast to the complaint case lodged by the daughter of the petitioners, only to harass the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint were false and absurd and attended by mala fide with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused/petitioners with a view to spite the petitioners due to grudge for lodging the complaint against the son of the respondent No. 1 u/s 498 A/325/506 IPC. Mr. Bhattacharyya further contended that there was no ingredient of offence u/s 495 IPC inasmuch as, when the marriage of the daughter of the petitioners with the son of the respondent No. 1 was solemnised, admittedly the earlier marriage was not subsisting. 7. Mr. S.K. Goswami learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that merely because the allegations made in the complaint do not attract section 495 IPC or the learned Magistrate took cognizance under a wrong provision, the proceeding cannot be quashed if the allegations made in the complaint makes out offence under other penal provision, inasmuch as, taking cognizance is not the end of the matter. The Court would have the opportunity to consider the allegations made in the complaint further at the time of framing of charge. It was also contended by Mr. Goswami that by concealing the fact of previous marriage the petitioners have cheated the respondent No. 1 and therefore, the complaint clearly made out the offence u/s 420 IPC. 8. The Court would have the opportunity to consider the allegations made in the complaint further at the time of framing of charge. It was also contended by Mr. Goswami that by concealing the fact of previous marriage the petitioners have cheated the respondent No. 1 and therefore, the complaint clearly made out the offence u/s 420 IPC. 8. It is evident from the allegations made in the complaint that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioners with the London based doctor was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 17/12/2012 and the marriage between the daughter of the petitioners and the son of the respondent No. 1 was solemnised in the month of May, 2013 and as such, there was apparently no ingredient of offence u/s 495 IPC, inasmuch as, for constituting offence u/s 495 IPC there has to be an offence u/s 494 IPC, i.e., marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage. Mr. Goswami also fairly contended that no offence u/s 495 IPC was made out, and therefore, taking cognizance by the learned trial court u/s 495 IPC read with section 109 IPC appears to be total non-application of mind on the part of the learned trial court. 9. The Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (supra) enumerated the following categories of cases, where the high Court should and can exercise the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing a complaint to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court :- (1) "Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) 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 of the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal private grudge". 10. The Apex Court in Clause (5) & (7) above clearly indicated that when the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable and the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or the criminal proceeding is instituted with ulterior motive to fulfil ones personal grudge, High Court should interfere and quash such mala fide and motivated proceeding in the interest of justice. In the instant case, the only allegation against the petitioners in the complaint was that while enquiring about the antecedents of the daughter of the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 came to know that she was married earlier with another boy and such marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce, and the petitioners concealed the said fact of previous marriage. 11. In order to constitute an offence u/s 420 IPC the two essential ingredients required are deception and dishonest inducement to the person deceived, to deliver any property or to make, alter, destroy any valuable security. There was no allegation of dishonest inducement to deliver any property. 11. In order to constitute an offence u/s 420 IPC the two essential ingredients required are deception and dishonest inducement to the person deceived, to deliver any property or to make, alter, destroy any valuable security. There was no allegation of dishonest inducement to deliver any property. Even if the allegations made in the complaint that the petitioners did not disclose the fact of previous marriage and divorce of their daughter, while giving proposal for marriage with the son of the respondent No. 1, are accepted to be true, such allegations do not make out an offence u/s 420 IPC for want of delivery of property and dishonest inducement to deliver property. 12. While taking cognizance for a criminal offence, it is necessary to look into the allegations at least for prima facie satisfaction whether such allegations are probable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is common knowledge in the Indian society that before entering into the relationship of marriage usually both the parties enquire about the antecedents of the groom or bride or their family. In the present case, from the allegations in the complaint itself, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 were childhood friends and they had been maintaining close family relationship. In spite of both the families being very close to each other from childhood, the original proposal for marriage was rejected by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that horoscope of the groom and bride did not match. Later on, again when for the second time, the proposal for marriage between the daughter of the petitioners and the son of the respondent no. 1 was given, it was discussed amongst both the families and in fact the groom and bride, both being highly qualified, met each other 2/3 times to know each other and thereafter only, the marriage was solemnized. 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, when the proposal for marriage was once rejected only because of the horoscope not matching and subsequently marriage was organized after much discussion by both the parties, it is difficult to comprehend that before taking a decision for the second time for marriage, respondent No. 1 did not enquire about the antecedents of the bride. Had the parties were not known to each other earlier, perhaps, matter could have been thought to be otherwise. 14. Had the parties were not known to each other earlier, perhaps, matter could have been thought to be otherwise. 14. Thus, having considered the relationship between the two families and their social status, I am of the view that the allegations made in the complaint appears to be improbable and absurd. That apart, the lodging of the complaint only after institution of the complaint case by the daughter of the petitioners also suggest that the present complaint is nothing, but a counterblast to the criminal case filed by the daughter of the petitioners. 15. Having considered the whole gamut of the matter, the scope and contour of the power of the High Court to interfere with the criminal proceedings at the threshold, I am of the view that this is a fit case, where the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed for securing the ends of justice and also to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly the impugned order dated 10/6/2015 passed in CR Case No. 3336C/2014 as well the proceeding in CR Case No. 3336C/2014 are hereby quashed. 16. Send back the LCR.