IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15222 of 2010 1. RAM PRAVESH SINGH, SON OF LATE LAXMAN SINGH 2. SHANTI DEVI, WIFE OF RAM PRAVESH SINGH 3. DILIP KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAM PRAVESH SINGH 4. NAGENDRA SINGH, SON OF RAM PRAVESH SINGH 5. RAJEEV KUMAR, SON OF RAM PRAVESH SINGH ALL PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – HARAIYADIH, P.S. PIRO, DISTT. BHOJPUR. ------- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANITA SINGH, WIFE OF NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH, DAUGHTER OF SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH, RESIENT OF MOHALLA – SHIVAJI NAGAR, MAKHDUMPUR BAGICHA, DIGHA GHAT, P.S. DIGHA, DISTT. PATNA. -------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 05.10.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners who are the parents-in-law and the brothers-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2 seeks quashing of the order dated 8.4.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Digha P.S. Case No. 82 of 2007, G.R. No. 1637 of 2007 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioners in an offence in which cognizance was taken under Sections 498A, 365,323, 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. The facts of the case is that on 1.4.2007 the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a case against her in-laws stating therein that she was married to the son of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the brothers of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 whereafter a baby girl as also a male child were born to them in the year 2003 and 2004 respectively. It has generally been stated that the in-laws used to mete out mental cruelty and used to also physically assault her. Thereafter, it is alleged specifically about the husband and that in fact, he had married another girl and was 2 living with her. The rest of the First Information Report is dedicated only to her husband. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that apart from a few stray sentences in the beginning of the First Information Report generally alleging vaguely against the petitioners, no further specifics have been given. Under the circumstances, no offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code would be made out against the petitioners since the basic ingredients to the offence are missing. The counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has disputed this contention and states that in fact, there is allegation against the petitioners and, therefore, they should be put on trial. On going through the First Information Report, I agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that only vague statements have been made generally against the rest of the family members of the husband of the Informant which does not warrant putting them on trial. In view of such, the application is allowed and the order dated 8.4.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Digha P.S. Case No. 82 of 2007, G.R. No. 1637 of 2007 with regard to the petitioners is quashed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)