IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18942 of 2007 ARUNA VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 7/ 24/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is the informant/wife in a case under Section-498A of I.P.C. The allegations are that she was married to one Sanjeev Ranjan Verma. The latter is the brother of the O.P. No.2. The opposite party no.2 is married herself, a fact acknowledged by the petitioner in paragraph-11 of pleadings when it simultaneously urged that at times she did come to stay at the matrimonial home of the petitioner. The allegations are that her husband was a coward and unemployed and was scared of his mother and elder brother. An omnibus allegation has then been made against the opposite party no.2 in a common reference along with the other members of the family of the husband for harassment. There is no direct or individual allegation made against O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 came to this Court questioning the order of cognizance against her in Cr.Misc. No.18093/03. This Court on 28.6.2004 noticing the submission on her - 2 - behalf that she was out of the country for the period in question and noticing the general and omnibus allegation set aside the order of cognizance with a requirement to proceed afresh on the basis of materials that may be already available on the record insofar as the O.P. No.2 was concerned. The court below by order dated 30.3.2006, on consideration of the materials already on the record has arrived at its fresh satisfaction that there was no material to put the O.P. No.2 on trial and therefore she was discharged from the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner made much of an issue of the fact that the court below had discharged the O.P. No.2 which could not have been done at the stage of cognizance. On a complete reading of the order dated 30.3.2006 of the court below with the order of this Court dated 28.6.2004, it is apparent that the use of the word “discharge” is a misnomer. The order of cognizance was set aside with liberty to take fresh cognizance if permissible on the basis of materials already on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner from the pleadings of the present application has not been able to demonstrate any error of record committed by the Magistrate when he declined to take cognizance for - 3 - reasons of absence of materials against O.P. No.2. That this Court may have declined to interfere with the order taking cognizance in an application preferred by the other family members i.e. Cr.Misc.No.53475/06 is hardly relevant in view of the specific finding in the order sought to be impugned, as far as the present O.P. No.2 is concerned, for the purposes of cognizance. Instead of pursuing the mater on merits, the petitioner appears more keen on pursing the opposite party no.2 merely because she was a member of the husband’s family even while she chooses to make generalized omnibus allegations against opposite party no.2. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )