IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52511 of 2007 1. SURESH SAH 2. PRAKASH SAH, BOTH SONS OF SUKDEV SAH 3. SUKDEV SAH, SON OF LATE JAGDISH SAH 4. SMT. RINTI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI SUKDEV SAH 5. SMT. MUNIYA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI PRAKASH SAH 6. SMT. LALITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF SRI SUKDEV SAH (WIFE OF SRI INDRADEV SAH), ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANERJHOPE, POICE STATION FULLIDUMAR, DISTRICT BANKA ……… PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MADHURI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI SURESH SAH, DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNSHI SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHORA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT BANKA …. OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Nurul Hoda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, A.P.P. ---------- 5. 2.4.2010 The petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka in Complaint case No.843 of 2006, by which cognizance has been taken u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was heard in admission on 5.2.2009 and notice was issued to the opposite party no.2, who, despite service of notice, has chosen not to appear before this Court. The case of the complainant-opposite party no.2 is that she was married to the petitioner no.1 seven years ago and for four years she lead a happily married life after which she was tortured by the accused persons and demands of Rs.25,000/- and a motorcycle was made by them. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation, who once again stated that she was married about seven years ago and - 2 - for four years she was happy in her marital home. Thereafter the accused persons started causing unhappiness to her. She further stated that petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.5 used to reside in Orissa and even her husband used to reside with them in Orissa and had not come home for the last two years. She added that her husband used to ask for a motorcycle and she was driven out of the house on 13.6.2006. Neither in the complaint petition nor in her solemn affirmation the complainant alleged specifically against any of the accused persons and the entire complaint is totally vague and general in nature. On perusal of the complaint, I find that the accused persons apart from being mentioned in the column of accused not a word specifically has been said against any of them. In view of such, I am of the opinion that the continuance of the present case is a gross abuse of the process of the Court and is fit to be quashed. Under the circumstances, I allow this application and quash the order of cognizance dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka in Complaint case No.843 of 2006. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )