JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Sanjay Kumar Srviastava and Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 17.02.2012 in connection with Complaint Case No. 208 of 2008, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Lohardaga. 3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein the petitioner no. 1 mother-in-law of the complainant and petitioner no. 2 is the Dewar (brother-in-law of the complainant and Sheo Narayan Lal Agrawal (father in law) is dead. The marriage of the complainant was performed with Praveen Kumar Agrawal since deceased on 19.01.2006 according to the Hindu custom. It was further alleged that at the time of marriage several articles were given to the accused petitioners including the cash. It was further alleged that after marriage she went to matrimonial house and subsequently the accused petitioners raised for further demand for dowry and they were pressurized the complainant and her husband with respect of said demand. It was further alleged that the accused persons were regularly threatening the husband of the complainant that so share in any property will be given to him till he will divorce his wife. The complainant having cordial relation with her husband but due to interference and threatening given by the accused persons to the complainant as well as her husband both were residing separately in two different places. It was further alleged that on 14th June, 2007 the complainant gave birth to a female child at Ursuline Hospital, Lohardaga and this news was communicated to the husband by the relatives of the complainant her husband was very happy and was eager to talk with the complainant but as the complainant was in female was inside the hospital hence he could not talk with the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant received no message from her husband till 23.06.2007 and therefore she requested her relatives to have contact with her husband the relatives of the complainant dialed several times and tried to talk with the husband but could not approach Praveen Kumar. It was further alleged that the complainant received no message from her husband till 23.06.2007 and therefore she requested her relatives to have contact with her husband the relatives of the complainant dialed several times and tried to talk with the husband but could not approach Praveen Kumar. It was further alleged that on 20.07.2007 the accused Sheo Narayan Lal, Smt. Renuka Devi and Abhay Kumar came to Lohardaga and requested the complainant to put her signature on two blank sheets of paper and when the complainant refused to put her signature and stated that she will talk with her husband and after his consent and in his presence she will put her signature thereupon the accused persons became angry and started abusing the complainant and told the complainant that her husband is no more in the world. It was further alleged that the husband of the complainant was legal practitioner and was practicing at Patna but due to ill treatment and misbehave and also due to mental torture of the accused persons has left his profession and was living of village Koach since last six months and two days prior to his death he has gone to Patna to bring his bag and baggage and during his stay at Patna the accused persons extended threats and misbehaved with him which compelled Praveen Kumar to commit suicide. It was further alleged that it was non but the accused persons who compelled the husband of the complainant to get himself separated from the complainant due to non fulfilment of their illegal demands, otherwise her husband would not have committed suicide. 4. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is brother-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 and father-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 has already left of his heavenly abode. He submits that the present case is counter blast of Shastri Nagar, Patna P.S. Case No. 131 of 2007 registered under section 306/34 of the I.P.C. against the O.P. No.2 for abetment of suicide of her husband of O.P. No. 2. He further submits that in that case police has investigated the matter and submitted chargesheet whereby the O.P. No. 2 has been sent up for trial. He further submits that in that case police has investigated the matter and submitted chargesheet whereby the O.P. No. 2 has been sent up for trial. He further submits that the O.P. No.2 filed discharge petition before the Patna High Court which has been dismissed and the matter is pending before the learned court. He submits that the Ist FIR is of 24.06.2007 being Shastri Nagar, Patna P.S. Case No. 131 of 2007. He submits that when the investigation was going on, on 09.08.2007 the Complaint Case No. 107/2007 was filed by the O.P. No.2 against the petitioners which was sent under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. in which final form has been submitted and the petitioners have not been sent up for trial however, on the protest petition the case was numbered as Complaint Case No. 208 of 2008 in which the learned court has taken cognizance under section 380 of I.P.C. by order dated 17.02.2012. He submits that the present case is counter blast and allegations are that the petitioners have come from Patna to Lohardaga for stealing briefcase of the O.P. No.2. He submits that this act is unbelievable that the petitioners would have been come from Patna to Lohardaga for committing alleged act. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding is abuse of process of law and this Court may interfere with the proceeding. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that on the protest petition, learned court has taken cognizance and there is no illegality. 6. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the O.P. No.2 was married with the son of the petitioner no.1 who happens to be the mother-in-law of O.P. No.2 and the petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law of the O.P. No.2. For abetment of suicide the F.I.R. being Shastri Nagar, Patna P.S. Case No. 131 of 2007 was registered against the O.P. No.2 in which chargesheet has been submitted and O.P. No. 2 has been sent up for trial. The O.P. No.2 filed discharge petition before the Patna High Court which was refused and the case is pending before the trial court. The O.P. No.2 filed discharge petition before the Patna High Court which was refused and the case is pending before the trial court. The F.I.R. being Shastri Nagar, Patna P.S. Case No. 131 of 2007 was registered on 24.06.2007 and the complaint case was filed on 09.08.2007 alleging that the petitioners have come from Patna to Lohardaga for committing theft. The police investigated the matter and submitted final form against the petitioners in which the petitioners have not been sent up for trial and on the protest petition learned court has taken cognizance. By order dated 01.08.2009 considering the protest petition it has been observed by the learned court that for death of a person, trial cannot concurrently run on two places and the death of the husband of the complainant will also disclose and reveal some facts alleged in the complaint petition and the matter was posted for order on 27.08.2009 and by order dated 17.02.2012 the learned court has taken cognizance. Looking into order taking cognizance order, it appears that only on the statement of O.P. No.2 and in absence of any other enquiry witness the learned court has taken cognizance. If the case is arises out of police case investigation has been conducted and chargesheet has been submitted and the petitioners have not been sent up for trial it was incumbent upon the learned court to give reason of differing with the chargesheet as well as what are the materials before the learned court to take cognizance on the protest petition which is lacking in the case in hand. It appears that this is case of malicious prosecution and by way of counter blast of first case, the present case has been filed by the O.P. No. 2 to face the trial for abetment of suicide none other than her husband. Reference may be made to the case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein para 30 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3.Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. 7. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 17.02.2012 in connection with Complaint Case No. 208 of 2008, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Lohardaga, is hereby quashed. 8. This petition is disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.