IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45946 of 2007 PARMENDRA THAKUR @ PRAMENDRA, S/o Suresh Thakur R/oPakwalia, P.S. Daraunda, District – Siwan …………. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Baby Devi, w/o Bijendra Thakur @ Vijay Thakur @ Jitendra Thakur, D/o Pulis Thakur, R/o Aamwaria, P.S. Raghunathpur, District – Siwan. … Opp. Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Ramchandra Sahni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Chandra Kant, Advocate ----- 4 27.1.2009 The petitioner along with others has been made to figure as accused in Complaint Case No. 1597 of 2006 and being aggrieved by order dated 24.1.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, he has prayed for the quashing of the same. By the aforesaid order cognizance has been taken under sections 498A and 323 I.P.C. Briefly stated the case of the complainant, who has been impleaded as O.P. No. no. 2 herein, is that her marriage with accused Bijendra Thakur was solemnized on 20.5.2004, whereat her father and brother had given costly gifts apart from Rs. 50,000/- in cash and ornaments of the same value. However, on her entry in the matrimonial home her husband allegedly made a demand for a motorcycle instigated by the other accused and as the marriage was facing a breakdown parlays were held with an assurance to provide him a motorcycle, whereafter the differences were patched. Subsequently apart from the demand of the motorcycle an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded for the expenses of passage of the - 2 - husband to go abroad and for the non fulfillment of these demands the complainant allegedly was subjected to torture and cruelty at the hands of the accused persons and eventually she was ousted from the matrimonial home on 14.8.2008. Assailing the impugned order the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of his having committed any overt act at any point of time and the only allegation against him is of accompanying the complainant to her maika on being ousted. This apparently, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be termed as an overt act or an act which constitutes an offence. The learned counsel for the complainant sought to submit that there was specific allegation against all the accused of their having demanded the motorcycle and cash and also having tortured the complainant for non fulfillment of the same. In this context my attention was drawn to paragraph 3 of the deposition of E.W. 3, Shambhu Nath Thakur, who specifically named the petitioner as one of the persons who assaulted and tortured the complainant. I am not ready to accept this submission advanced by the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 since Shambhu Nath Thakur is not a family member of the complainant and is an outsider who deposed at the inquiry and in contrast to the deposition of Shambhu Nath Thakur the complainant herself and her brother, Ashok Thakur, in their statement on S.A. and deposition in the inquiry respectively have not stated anything about any specific overt act committed by this petitioner and in their entire - 3 - deposition as also in the recital in the complaint the entire allegation against the accused persons except the husband and the father of the husband, is omnibus and general in nature which apparently does not attract the provisions of section 498A or 323 I.P.C. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above the continuance of proceeding against the petitioner herein would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly the impugned order, so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)