IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34151 of 2009 1. Chirantan Kumar, son of Late Rajendra Sinha, 2. Simpi Kumari, daughter of Sri Chirantan Kumar, both of Mahavir Nagar, Beur Jail Road, PO Anisabad, PS Phulwari Sharif, Dist. Patna. 3. Shobha Devi alias Sobha Devi, wife of Shri Sudhir Kumar, 4. Sudhir Kumar, son of Late Brahmadeo Singh, village Khojagachhi, PS Barbigha, Dist. Sheikhpura. 5. Bandana Kumari alias Vandana Devi alias Kanchan Devi, wife of Shri Sunil Kumar Pathak, 6. Sunil Kumar Pathank, son of Shri Surendra Nath Pathak, both of Shakti Nagar, PS Rustampur Dhola, Dist. Gorakhpur, U.P. 7. Archana Kumari alias Pappi Kumari, wife of Brajnandan Rai, resident of 129A, Awas Vikas Colony, PS Shahpur, Dist. Gorakhpur. 8. Ram Sagar Singh, son of Late Shaligram Singh, village Maur, PS Barbigha, District Sheikhpura. 9. Mohan Kumar, son of Devi Kant Jha, village Dhamaura, PS Chanpatiya, Dist. West Champaran – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Gayetri Kumari, daughter of Shri Ramjeet Upadhayay, resident of East Ram Krishna Nagar, PO Dholwan, PS Kankarbagh, District Patna – opp. parties. 9 13.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Phulwari Sharif PS Case No. 140/2006 by which the petition filed under section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. The petitioners are the elder brother, niece, sister, married sister, brother-in-law, maternal uncle and friend of the husband. There is omnibus allegation that these petitioners were also present and were demanding dowry. Learned counsel for the opposite party strenuously argued that against petitioner no.1, there is specific allegation that he had received money by cheque before the marriage and as such he too was a party for demand of dowry. The fact is that the cheque was not 2 in the name of petitioner no.1 and as such it cannot be said that he had received the cheque for his own benefit or that he was the beneficiary of the cheque amount paid by parents of opposite party. In a case filed under section 498A of the Penal Code, very often, in order to vindicate the humiliation and hurt, the extended family and friends are made accused, which does not in any way help the victim, rather, it water downs the seriousness of the allegation. In view of the fact that there is omnibus allegation and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners, I do not think that the order refusing to discharge the petitioners is justified. Accordingly the impugned order is quashed. This application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)