IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30659 of 2009 DR.DINESH KUMAR BHAGAT @ DR.DINESH BHAGAT Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3 03.09.2010 The petitioner who is the brother-in- law of the opposite party No.2 has sought quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 8.8.2007 by which the S.D.J.M. Munger has taken cognizance under Section 498A, 323, 406 I.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 909(C) of 2006. The contention of the petitioner is that from the narrative of the First Information Report there is no cogent allegation against the petitioner which would justify putting the petitioner on trial. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 contends that from the facts of the complaint it appears that it is clearly a case punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 I.P.C. On going the narrative of the complaint petition, I find that the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in paragraph 2 and 7 but there is only a sweeping allegation which would not make out a case under Sections 2 323, 406 and 498A I.P.C. Since the ingredients of these offences are not satisfied from the mere perusal of the complaint, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 8.8.2007 in so far as petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed. The application is allowed. Bibhash (Anjana Prakash, J.)