IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.33519 OF 2008 1. MD.NIJAMUDDIN, SON OF MD. ISMAIL @ ISLAMUL 2. BIBI KHOSHJAN, WIFE OF MD. ISMAIL @ ISLAMUL 3. MD. JAMRUDDIN, SON OF MD. ISMAIL @ ISLAMUL 4. MD. ISRAIL, SON OF MD. ISMAIL @ ISLAMUL 5. SABILA KHATOON, WIFE OF HARUN MAULVI ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANSGADHA, POST OFFICE BANSGADHA, POLICE STATION BARARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR …………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAVISHA KHATOON, WIFE OF JIJAMUDDIN, DAUGHTER OF MD. ABDULLA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELBARI GANJ, POLICE STATION BARARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR …………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES ******** 2 19/07/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the complainant although notice was issued to the complainant and was validly served on her. Learned Counsel for the petitioners first of all referred to the fact that the complainant had taken a Khola Talaak (voluntary divorce) from the petitioner no. 1, which is annexed as Annexure-3 and 4. She has also filed an application before the Court below for bringing this fact to the notice of the Court on 04th January, 2007. In this background, the Court is examining the allegations in the complaint case, which are that after one year of the marriage, the husband asked for a dowry of Rs. 10,000/- to start his business. It is alleged that on refusal to pay the said amount, the petitioner no. 1 2 abused the complainant. It is also alleged that his family members supported him in the said demand. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is omnibus allegation against the family members. It is specifically stated that the brothers of petitioner no. 1 lives separately to the petitioner no. 1 and have their own means of livelihood and have no concern with the life of petitioner no. 1 and the complainant. A supplementary affidavit has been filed indicating that the complainant has remarried and the Nikahnama has been annexed to support this fact. Considering that the allegation against the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 are omnibus in nature, it appears that they have been dragged into the case to give the entire matter a serious look. In view of the fact that there are omnibus allegations against the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5, I quash the order dated 17.05.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 1450 of 2006. The Court below is further directed to consider the case of the husband at the stage of framing of the charges considering the fact that Opposite Party No. 2 has remarried and that she cannot do if there is no divorce, which indicate that in fact the problem between 3 the husband the wife was not of dowry, rather it was related to certain other problems. This application is partly allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )