IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49142 of 2007 1. ATUL KUMAR 2. AJAY KUMAR BOTH SONS OF LATE RAMKRIT PRASAD VERMA 3. MAMTA VERMA WIFE OF AJAY KUMAR VERMA 4. CHANDRAKALA VERMA WIFE OF LATE RAMKRIT PD. VERMA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. SULEKHA DEVI WIFE OF ATUL KUMAR ----------- 3. 26.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for Opposite party no. 2. The petitioners, who are the husband and his family members, are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 28.9.2007 in Complaint case No. C-147 of 2007 under Section 498 A of the Penal Code passed by the SDJM, Motihari. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier petitioner no. 1, the husband, filed an application for divorce on 18.9.2006 in which ultimately notices had to be served on Opposite party no. 2 by publication on 31.1.2007 and on which date the present complaint was filed. The submission is that the allegations were, therefore, made only to wreak vengeance because of the institution of the divorce case. Learned counsel for Opposite party no. 2 opposes the application to submit that the divorce proceeding and the present allegations for the period prior to divorce were separate matters. The allegations in the complaint are in a marriage of 10 years. Petitioner no. 1 is stated to have filed petition for divorce. In the complaint the entire allegations are primarily 2 against petitioner no. 1, the husband. In so far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned, there is omnibus reference to them with no specific individual overt act. This Court on consideration of the allegations made in the complaint finds no justification to entertain this application in so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned. The application is, therefore, dismissed with regard to him. In so far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned, there are no specific allegations against them. In an omnibus manner, it is alleged that they cursed opposite party no. 2, used foul language, were not decent in their behaviour etc. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that implication of petitioners 2, 3 & 4 was primarily in ire against the action of petitioner no. 1 so as to rope in the entire family including the wife of the brother of the husband. The prosecution of petitioners 2, 3 & 4 in complaint case No. C-147 of 2007 pending in the court of SDJM, Motihari is, therefore, quashed. The application is allowed only with regard to petitioners 2, 3 & 4. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)