IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.49896 of 2007 1. KANHAIYA LAL S/o Late Jagdish Bhagat 2. Puspa Devi w/o Kanhaiya Lal Both residents of Mohalla Pakri, P.S. Ara Nawada, District Bhojpur. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Devnath Prasad S/o Late Basawan Bhagat, resident of Mohalla Maulabag Mahabir Asthan, P.S. Ara Town District Bhojpur. . . . . . Opposite parties. ----------- 7/ 18.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2. The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ara in Complaint case no. 942 C of 2007 by which processes have been issued against them for facing trial under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 happens to be the father- in-law and mother-in-law of the daughter of opposite party no.2. In other words, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 happens to be the Samadhi and Samdhan of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 alleged in the complaint that his daughter namely Kiran Devi was married with Sunny Pal, son of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that after marriage, both the petitioners began to torture her daughter for dowry. As a consequence, the daughter of opposite party no.2 and her husband left the house and are residing with opposite party no.2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact Sunny Pal, the son-in-law of opposite party no.2 has strained relation with his - 2 - parents, namely petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and he engineered filing of another complaint case no. 1240 C of 2006, bearing Tr. No. 2701 of 2007 against the petitioners under Sections 323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid case was quashed by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9335 of 2007, observing that it is Sunny Pal, who has got the case lodged against his own parents for harassing them. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that similarly again at the behest of his son-in-law, Sunny Pal, the opposite party no.2 filed instant complaint case, which was referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. giving rise to Ara (Town) P.S. case no. 117 of 2006 under Sections 498 A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners state that police after investigation submitted Final form and case now proceeds on protest-cum-complaint petition. Learned counsel submits that the instant case too has been filed at the behest of their son to wreak vengeance against them. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that protest petition, S.A. and the deposition of Kiran Devi supports prima facie offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the court would not look into the police diary, as cognizance has been taken on protest-cum-complaint. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the allegation against Puspa Devi, petitioner no.2, is vague and general. Further more, the son of petitioner no.2 along with his wife are witnesses in the aforesaid protest-cum-complaint. The deposition - 3 - of Kiran Devi would show that main allegations is levelled against petitioner no.1, Kanhaiya Lal. Taking into consideration, the totality of the circumstances and materials on record, I set aside the order taking cognizance under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against petitioner no.2, Puspa Devi. However, this application is dismissed against petitioner no.1, with liberty to take all these points at the time of framing of charge. This application is partly allowed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)