IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.157 of 2007 1. LALITA DEVI, W/O Sri Kunkun Prasad Choudhary @ Kunkum Choudhary. 2. Chandan Kumar Choudhary, S/O Sri Kunkun Prasad Choudhary @ Kunkum Choudhary. .....Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Rita Devi, W/O Vinay Kumar Choudhary. .....Opp. Party. with Cr.Misc. No.56177 of 2006 ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, S/O Sri Kunkun Prasad Choudhary @ Kunkum Choudhary ......Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Rita Devi, W/O Vinay Kumar Choudhary. ....Opp. Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Abhinay Raj, Adv. For O.P.:- Mr. Rajiv Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, APP 4 21.04.2011 This application has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding as well as order of cognizance dated 29.11.2005 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in Complaint Case No. 679 of 2005, taking cognizance under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 56177 of 2006, Anil Kumar Choudhary is the brother-in-law of the Opposite Party no. 2, petitioner no. 1 in Cr. Misc. No. 2 157 of 2007 Lalita Devi is the mother-in-law of Opposite Party no. 2 whereas petitioner no.2 Chandan Kumar Choudhary is also brother-in- law of the Opposite Party no. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has produced an affidavit signed by the father of Chandan Kumar Choudhary, stating therein that Chandan Kumar Choudhary died on 01.04.2010. The affidavit should remain on record. The case was instituted by Rita Devi stating therein that she was married with Vinay Kumar Choudhary and was residing in her matrimonial home in village Bholsar Ekchari, Police Station-Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur. She alleged that her husband is unemployed and she offered to sell her ornaments to provide money for starting a “Kirana Shop”. Latter the informant also requested her father to give some money and help her husband. After some time her husband began to make demands and asked for Rs. 50,000/- for his business. When the Opposite Party No. 2 refused to provide the money for her husband, the other family 3 members abused her. It has also been alleged that the Kirana shop was a means for sustenance for all the family members. There is general allegation against the family members that they abused her and also tried to physically harm her by attempting to burn her. On 12.05.2005 she managed to escape assuring them that she was going home to fulfill their demands. Opposite Party no. 2 alleged in the complaint petition that she left her matrimonial house due to atrocities committed by her in laws. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation is false and as far as the petitioners aforesaid are concerned, there is no specific allegation against any of them. It is further submitted that infact brother-in-law did not live with his brother Vinay Kumar Choudhary. With respect to Ashok Kumar Choudhary, it is specifically stated that he does not live with Opposite Party no. 2, inasmuch as he is working in the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited in a quarter allotted to him since 1996. This fact reveals that the entire 4 case is false and had been filed to harass the petitioners. There is no counter affidavit on the record in this case denying the assertions made in the quashing application. In any event, from the perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that allegation against these petitioners are vague in nature. The demand, if any, made by the husband for the purpose of improving his business does not amount to a demand of dowry. Moreover, it could not be said that it was for the benefit of the two brothers of husband of the complainant. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka in Complaint Case No. 679 of 2005 as far as these petitioners are concerned. Accordingly this application is allowed. Bhardwaj/ ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)