IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4494 of 2009 1. Hafiz, son of Late Md. Islam @ Loake 2. Aiyub, son of Late Md. Islam @ Loake. 3. Suleman, son of Late Md. Islam @ Loake. 4. Bibi Sharda, wife of Aiyub. 5. Marjina Khatoon, wife of Suleman. 6. Farhana, D/o Aiyub All resident of Village- Patringa, P.S. Dagarua, District- Purnea. …………………………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Afsana Khatoon, wife of Hafiz, D/o Abdul Gafoor, at present resident of Village- Nikhra, P.S. Kadwa, District-Katihar………Complainant/Opposite Parties. For the petitioners :- Md. Bahauddin, Advocate. For the O.P.No. 2 :- Mr. Abdul Wadood, Advocate. For the State :- ----------- 4. 13.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, contends that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the complainant and the husband has now been dead. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, complainant also does not dispute about death of the husband during the pendency of this miscellaneous petition and hence name of the husband of the complainant is ordered to be deleted. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed against the order of taking cognizance dated 07. 05. 2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 2967 of 2007, by which cognizance has been taken against all the accused persons which includes husband, dewar, 2 gotini and one daughter of dewar of the complainant. The allegation is that marriage was solemnised with petitioner no. 1(who is alleged to be dead is not deposed) death stated to be during the pendency of this case. Thereafter, demand was made and even when the victim was ill she was not treated. She informed her father and he tried the matter amicably settled but it was not done. It is further alleged that the accused persons ousted her from matrimonial house after assault and snatching her belongings. Thereafter, she went to her Maika. It is alleged that accused No. 1 to 3, husband and two dewar came to the house of the complainant and demanded money, even money was not paid then they said the complainant to stay with her family. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that other accused persons is concerned, there is no specific allegation against any of them whatever stated is omnibus and vague. There is no specific allegation or any act of commission or omission against any of the petitioners. Whatever alleged against the accused person is quite vague and not specific and further contends that main grievance against the petitioners is that she was not treated by the Doctor when she complained about her illness and there is no allegation 3 of demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the opposite party however contends that the husband of the victim died now she is entitled for her husband share. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, contends that share of complainant in the ancestral property is well defined and the complainant is entitled of share to the extent of her husband and getting sale of the property to the extent of share of her husband. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations against the petitioners are quite vague and omnibus and the petitioners are two dewars, two gotini and daughter of dewar, hence the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)