IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49661 of 2007 SHILA DEVI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 03 28.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and also learned counsel for opposite party no.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 18.8.2007 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 1378 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner-2 is not a family member and petitioner-4 is not a member of the immediate family of the husband, but a distant relative. He shall, therefore, not come within the definition of ‘relative’ under Section-498A of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier another complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 had been dismissed under Section-203 of the Indian Penal Code in pursuance of a compromise. Filing of repeated applications was an abuse of process of law. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is confined to the actions of the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman. The term ‘relative’ has not been defined. This Court has no hesitation in holding that such relationship has to be immediate in nature and cannot be extended to a distant relationship so as to rope in all and sundry who may be related to the husband in one form or the other. Once it is held that the petitioner nos. 2 and 4 are not part of the family, the issue of demanding dowry on behalf of another, does not arise normally and in any event in the present complaint, there are no allegations specified against them of having made any such demands, but the allegations against them are omnibus. This Court, therefore, holds that the continuance of the prosecution against petitioner nos. 2 and 4 shall be an abuse of process of law. The proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1378 of 2007 is quashed only in so far as they are concerned. This Court on consideration of the materials contained in the complaint and the submissions of the parties is not satisfied that any case is made out warranting interference with the trial insofar as, the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, the application is, therefore, rejected with regard to them. The application stands allowed only to the extent indicated. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)