IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24900 of 2007 1. SHAYESTA PARVEEN @ RAMEE @ SAISTA KHATOON Wife of S.S. Mahtab Ahmed 2. Shed Shah Mahtab Ahmad @ Mahtab Ahmad Both are resident of Mohalla- Awal Mohalla, P.S. + P.O. & District- Chatra, State- Jharkhand ------------------Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Saista Nisant, Wife of Saiyed Afroj Naiyar @ Naiyar Afroj @ Sikandar, Son of Late Saiyed Salimuddin, Resident of Mohalla- Panchayti Akhara, P. S.- Kotwali, Near Ganga Mahal, Old Jailkhana, Jang Bahadur Road, Distt- Gaya at present resident of Mohalla- Sherpur, S/o Saiyed Razi Haider, P.S.- Biharshariff, District- Nalanda, State- Bihar --------------------Opposite Parties ----------- 8. 9.7.2009 The petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.6.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Nalanda at Biharsharif by which he has taken cognizance against the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act. The case as made out to the complaint petition is that the complainant was married to one Syed Afroz Nayer on 1.12.2005. At the time of marriage ornament and money was demanded from the family members of the petitioner no. 1. In the entire complaint petitioner there is not a single line which would indicate that these two petitioners were in any way involved in the said occurrence. Most of the allegations are against the husband in this case. It has been accepted that in the complaint petition these petitioners are resident of Mohalla Awal District- Chatra in the State of Jharkhand which shows that they do not reside with the husband of the opposite party no. 1 at West Bengal. - 2 - Learned counsel further submits that the married sister-in- law and her husband are not expected to live with the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and cannot be said to be involved in the day to day life of the complainant. In the circumstances, on the basis of such general allegation which prima facie from the complaint petition does not seem to be probable. It is difficult to hold that prima facie a case is made out against these two petitioners under Section 498A and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the result, the order taking cognizance dated 14.6.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 264 (C)/2006 in respect of these two petitioners is quashed. The application is thus allowed. P. Kumar (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)