IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39482 of 2009 1. YASMIN ANJUM @ TANNA @ TANNY 2. Pinki @ Khalida Parween 3. Soni @ Humaria Khatoon 1 to 3 are daughters of Md. Sabbir 4. Hussain Khatoon wife of Md. Sabbir 5. Md. Sabbir son of Late Abdul Rashid 6. Md. Sinku @ Md. Tanbir 7. Md. Ballu @ Md. Afroz 8. Gullu Alias Md. Ali 9. Budhan @ Firoz 6 to 9 are sone os md. Sabbir All are resident of Village Kapoori Asthan Chowk, Main Road Market Town, Police Station –Begusarai, District- Begusarai Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Nagma Parween Wife of Jabbar Naiyer, resident of Purabsarai, Police Station- Kotwali District- Munger ----------- 3. 6.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite valid service of notice. The petitioners are stated to be the family members of the husband of opposite party no. 2. They are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 31.8.2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 307 of the Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against them in Complaint Case No. 432 (C) of 2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Munger as also the entire proceedings in the complaint case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire allegations for demand of dowry, the consequent payment of Rs. 10,000/- persisted with the demand for a 2 motorcycle is solely against the husband only. The only allegation against the petitioners generally without any specific reference both in the complaint and the statement on S.A. is that they humiliated and abused her and on her instigation of the husband harassed her. He submits that it was not enough to invoke Section 498A of the Penal Code against the petitioners. The allegation do not fulfill the ingredient of Section 504 of the Penal Code and in the nature of the allegation against them, the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act have no application. Counsel for the State opposing the application submitted that there are statements in the complaint that the petitioners also indulged abusive behaviour and therefore Section 504 of the Cr. P.C. had application. Section 498A of the Penal Code makes it an offence even if the relative of the husband subjects the women to cruelty. Cruelty has been defined as a conduct of such nature likely to drive women to commit suicide or grave injury or danger to life or health to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security. In the nature of the present allegation when it is only alleged that they used abusive language, taunted and instigated the husband, this Court is not satisfied that enough grounds have been made to invoke Section 498A of the Penal Code for such conduct as noticed in the statutory provisions with the consequences 3 mentioned therein. Such cruelty had to be in context of dowry demand for which there is no allegation against the petitioners but against the husband alone. In that view of the matter, the Dowry Prohibition Act has no application to the petitioners for the same reason of absence of any allegation against them therein. In so far as Section 504 of the Penal Code is concerned, it is not utterance of any objectable word that shall suffice. The complaint must disclose the nature of the objectable word to satisfy the Court by urging that the nature of the words were such so as to give rise to provocation immediately for breach of peace. In absence of any statement in the complaint of the nature of the abusive language in the generalized nature of the allegation, this Court is satisfied that no grounds have been made out to invoke Section 504 of the Penal Code. The entire proceedings against the petitioners including the order of cognizance in Complaint Case No. 432 (C) of 2006, is therefore set aside. This Court has made no observation with regard to the husband who is not before this Court. The application stands allowed only with regard to the petitioners. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)