IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42676 of 2007 1. NIBHA SINGH @ NIBHA KUMARI WIFE OF ANIL KUMAR SINGH 2. ANIL KUMAR SINGH SON OF RAGHUBANSH NARAIN SINGH BOTH R/O KAUTILAYA NIWAS, NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH, PATNA. 3. BIBHA SINGH @ BIBHA KUMARI W/O ARVIND SINGH R/O MOHALLA BAHADURPUR, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DIST. PATNA. --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. RASHMI SINGH W/O PANKAJ KUMAR, DAUGHTER OF SRI K.P.SINGH R/O 302 LOCHAN ENCLAVE BEHIND MAHENDRA LAK, KANKARBAGH, PATNA. --- OPP. PARTY. ----------- 03 19.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party no.2. Petitioners are married sisters–in-law and husband of the one of the sisters-in-law (Nibha Singh). They have been made accuseds along with other family members of the matrimonial home including the husband in a case instituted under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Sections 498A and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was investigated whereafter charge sheet was submitted sending the accused persons up for the trial leading to the order taking cognizance. While assailing the order impugned it is contended that the allegations are general and vague so far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do not constitute offence punishable under Section 498A of the Penal Code. So far as petitioner nos. 2 is concerned, there is not even iota of allegation in the F.I.R., save and except 2 indicating that one of the sisters-in-law is married to him. It is thus submitted that the order taking cognizance is bad in law as it suffers from non application of mind. Learned counsel relies on a case reported in 2007(2) PLJR 262(Rima Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr.) Learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2 on the other hand placed the F.I.R. on the strength of allegations contained therein it has been submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 and 3. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to verify only to the availability of the prima facie case. F.I.R. which has been found supported in course of investigation assign specific role regarding acts of cruelty and torture to the petitioner nos. 1 and 3. Learned Magistrate in the order impugned has recorded its findings that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. found support in course of investigation. After recording aforesaid satisfaction, cognizance has been taken. As about the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner no. 2, this Court finds that he is the husband of one of the sisters-in-law of the informant. Excepting the fact that he is the husband of one of her sisters-in-law there appears to be nothing in the F.I.R. which may constitute any offence(s) in the remote terms. He has been named only as the husband of one of nanad ( sister –in- law) In that view of the matter, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3 cognizance in so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, is the result of non application of mind. Accordingly, the application so far as petitioner nos. 1 and 3, namely, Nibha Singh @ Nibha Kumari and Bibha Singh @ Bibha Kumari are concerned fails and is dismissed. So far as petitioner no. 2, namely, Anil Kumar Singh is concerned, order taking cognizance dated 16.05.2007, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kadam Kuan P.S. Case no. 492 of 2005 stands quashed and set aside. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)