IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9561 of 2010 ITI RANI, WIFE OF SAKET KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MORSAND, P.S. PUSA, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. BINITA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SRI CHANDESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JADUDHARAMPUR, P.S. KANTI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 4 3.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Certified copy of the evidence recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. may be kept on record. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.12.2009 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner who is the married sister-in-law of Binita Kumari, who is the victim lady. In the complaint petition, there is not a single sentence or a word which indicates that the petitioner was also one of the persons who had made a demand of dowry or had any role to play in the alleged torture meted out to the opposite party no. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has produced the certified copy of the enquiry made by the Court below. P.W. 1 is the father of the opposite party no. 2. P.W. 2 is the person who had accompanied P.W. 1 when he went to visit Binita Kumari at her matrimonial home. P.W. 3 is Chandrika Singh who is the uncle of Binita Kumari. On perusal of the evidence of all three persons, there is not a single sentence which would indicate that the petitioner was also involved with the alleged torture or demand of dowry. There is no specific allegation against this petitioner that 2 she was living with her parents rather there is a submission and statement made on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner’s husband lives in Jamshedpur and the petitioner is residing with her husband at Jamshedpur. The Supreme Court in a case reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 (Neelu Chopra & Anr. Vs. Bharti) has held that where there is no specific allegation against the family members of the husband who has been arrayed as an accused in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Court should not ordinarily allow such cases to continue as it would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The present case comes within the four corners of the considerations as laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. In the result, I quash the order dated 14.12.2009, passed in Complaint Case No. 1192 of 2009. This application is allowed as far as this petitioner is concerned. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to deposit the cost of FAX for communicating the order to the concerned Court. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)