IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13578 of 2007 SMT.KAMNI SRIVASTAVA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 10.9.2008. Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Shivendra Kumar, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners who alongwith others have been made to figure as accused in Complaint Case No.343 of 2005, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 26.4.2005, passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, whereby he has taken cognizance against all the petitioners except the accused no.8 of the complaint petition. The petitioner nos.1 and 4 happen to be the nanad whereas petitioner no.2 is the nanadosi and the petitioner no.3 is the dewar of the complainant. According to the complainant’s case, Suman Prasad, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, her marriage with Kamal Kishore Prasad, was solemnized on 1.7.2002, whereafter she went to live with her husband in Kolkata where he was employed. It is alleged that prior to the marriage at the time of Tilak ceremony a sum of Rs.5,82,301/- was realized by the accused persons in the name of expenditure and making arrangements for the marriage and that out of the said amount Rs.1,60,000/- was paid by four demand drafts payable to Jyoti Prasad, the mother-in-law, Krishna Chandra Prasad, the father-in-law, Kamni Srivastava, the nanad and Suresh Chandra, the - 2 - nanadosi and the remaining amount was paid in cash. It is further alleged that during her stay in Kolkata for three continuous months she was forced to do all household chores including the cleaning of toilet and her position was virtually reduced to that of a maid servant. It is also alleged that on one occasion the husband having become annoyed assaulted her brutally which resulted in her losing a tooth. It is also alleged that two months after the return of the complainant to her parental home the husband came to Gaya and advised his father- in-law to dispose of all the lands and buildings owned and possessed by him in Gaya. He also advised him to dispose of the entire agricultural land to give substantial monetary aid to him to develop his business. The complainant’ father was stunned by the proposal and refused to follow the advice of Kamal Kishore. It has been submitted on behalf of the complainant-O.P. No.2 that she had been tortured collectively by all the accused persons and that a divorce case filed by the husband bearing Title Suit No.84 of 2004 which was ceremoniously dismissed and that the husband had now filed another divorce case. Be that as it may, from a plain reading of the complaint petition, it is apparent that all the allegations made either of torture or commission of overt act are directed against the husband and the allegation against rest of the accused persons appears to be general and omnibus in nature there being no specific allegation of the commission of any overt act by any of the other accused persons. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion - 3 - that it is only the husband against whom specific and direct allegations have been made and the allegation in respect of the other accused are omnibus and general in nature. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the impugned order taking cognizance, so far as these petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)