IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28810 of 2007 1. Dr.Kapileshwar Prasad Singh , son of Late Chandra Deep Singh 2. Vindhya Vasini Devi @ Vindhyavasini Singh, Wife of Dr. Kapileshwar Prasad Singh 3. Renu Singh @ Renu Devi, daughter of Dr. Kapileshwar Pd. Singh 4. Kashi Nath Singh @ Pappu Son of Dr. Kapileshwar Prasad Singh 5.Aditya Nath Singh Pankaj, Son of Dr.Kapileshwar Prasad Singh 6.Kiran Kumari Singh @ Chunchun @ Chunchun Devi ,daughter of Dr. Kapileshwar Prasad Singh 7. Usha Devi @ Usha Singh daughter of Dr. Kapileshwar Prasad Singh All are resident of Mohalla-Rajput Colony, Alal Patti P.S. Darbhanga Sadar, District-Darbhanga. ---------------------- Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Babita Kumari wife of Aditya Narain Singh @ PankajVishwanath Singh, resident of Mohalla-Rajput Colony, Alal Patti, P.S. & Distt Darbhanga, at present resident of Budha Colony Ander Colony,P. S. Town Hajipur, District-Vaishali ------------------- Opp.Parties ------------ 9 07-11-2008 Heard Mr. Keshav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners as also Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh,the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 and Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioners is against the order dated 22.5.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Complaint Case no.51 of 2006, whereby he has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A,406 I.P.C. as also 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is - 2 - the mother-in-law, petitioner nos.6 and 7 are Nanads , petitioner no.4 is the Bhaisur and petitioner no.5 is the husband of the complainant and the fact that the entire family had been roped in only goes to show the anxiety of the complainant to rope all the members of the same family to pressurize them to live separately. It has further been submitted that if the complainant and the accused persons were daggers drawn so far as the relation with each other is concerned, it would only be fit proper for them to separate peacefully and amicably instead of entering into long term litigation. Further submission is that there is no specific allegation of any specific overt act against any of the petitioners and the allegations are omnibus and generalized in nature. The further submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the complainant never agreed to live with her in- laws and on several occasions tried to instigate her husband (Petitioner no.5) to separate away from the family and set up a separate establishment for himself where the husband and wife could live separate from others and as the husband was not agreeable to the propositions, the complainant took the extreme step in roping all of them into litigation. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners apparently cannot be accepted at its face value merely because they are required to be proved through cogent and reliable evidence, which can only be done in course of trial. To do otherwise would be in excess of the scope of the limited powers under the - 3 - provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, it would only be fit and proper that the petitioners may raise these issues at the time of framing of the charge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-