IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.5283 of 2009 1. AFTAB AHMAD, S/O LATE SHAMSUL JAUHAR 2. NAUSHAD AHMAD, S/O LATE SHAMSUL JAUHAR 3. EBADI KHATOON, W/O LATE SHAMSUL JAUHAR 4. SAMA PARVEEN, W/O NAUSHAD AHMAD 5. GULSHAN ARA, W/O LATE IFTEKHAR AHMAD 6. DILSHAD AHMAD, S/O LATE IFTEKHAR AHMAD 7. PRINCE, S/O LATE IFTEKHAR AHMAD ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BAGHAUNI MADRASA CHOWK TAJPUR ROAD, P.S. TAJPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 8. ZEENAT PERVEEN W/O LATE KALAM AZAD 9. FARJANA KHATOON @ MONA, W/O CHHOTU BABU BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE WAINI, P.S. WAINI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 10. SABRA KHATOOB @ RUHI, W/O MD. AFJAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GADDOPUR, P.S. TAJPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 11. ZARRI, W/O MD. ZAKI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIDHAULI, P.S. ASHOL PAPER MILL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 12. NASRA KHATOON @ MINU, W/O SHAMIM AHMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATUARA, P.S. KALYANPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KAUSHAR PARVEEN, D/O NAQUI AHMAD, R/O MOHALLA BARHAMPURA, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, P.S. BARAHAMPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** For the petitioners .. M/S N.H. Khan & Md. Naushaduzzoha, Advs. For the State .. Mr. N.K. Prasad, APP For the informant .. Mr. S.Jamil Akhtar, Adv. **** /3/ 07.12.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order, dated 25.03.2008, passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 99 of 2008, by which the cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the complaint petition by Kaushar Parveen, is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Aftab Ahmad on 04.04.1999 at Islampur, Muzaffarput, and at the time of marriage it is alleged that there demand of rupees two lacs for maruti car was made as dowry publicly. It has, further, been alleged that the behaviour of sasural was not correct. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant is a contractor in Orissa and, in the meantime , it is alleged that her husband and husband’s elder brother developed illicit relationship with Gulshan Ara and the complainant has been subjected to cruelty so that complainant may commit suicide and whenever the complainant refused to leave her sasural, she has been assaulted by the accused persons. However, Panchyati 3 was made and rupees twenty thousand paid even then it is alleged that the pressure was made by accused 1 and 2, who are husband and Bhaisur, for the maruti car and on denial and showing inability by the naihar people, the complainant was brutally assaulted and locked in a room, but, the complainant anyhow managed to escape on the pretext to go out to meet the call of nature. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that whatever allegation has been made is made against accused 1 and 2, the husband and Bhaisur, however, allegation against the other accused persons are vague and omni bus and there is not even a single act alleged attributing any role to other accused other than accused 1 and 2, who are husband and Bhaisur. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, contends that allegation has been made at the time of marriage itself at Muzaffarpur and demand of rupees two lacs has been made for purchase of maruti car and, further, stated that the allegation has been made against all the accused persons making demand and subjecting cruelty to the complainant. 6. Hence, on the respective submissions of the 4 parties, the question for consideration is weather the occurrence took place at Muzaffarpur, whether the order taking cognizance and continuing of the proceeding against the accused persons are sustainable. 7. Having regard to the fact that in the complaint petition the allegation has been made specifically against two accused persons, i.e., accused 1 and 2, the husband and Bhaisur. The allegation against two accused persons are quite possible and not omni bus and vague. There is no specific allegation against other accused persons. However, in the complaint petition twelve persons have been made accused out of them accused 1 and 2 are husband and Bhaisur and the rest accused persons are mother-in-law, gotni, nanad and her son. 8. Having regard to the fact that in the complaint petition no role of commission and omission is attributed and omni bus allegation has been made that the belongings of the complainant have been snatched. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decision reported in 2010 (1) B.B.C.J., 55 (Pawan Kumar Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and 2006 (4) P.L.J.R., 14 (Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajeev Ranjan 5 Priyadarshi & Anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) for proposition that if the allegation is vague and not specific then delaying the prosecution to continue will be an abuse of process of the Court and, further, placed reliance on decision reported in 2008(3) P.L.J.R., 367, S.C. (Bhura Ram & Or. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) that the occurrence have not taken place at Muzaffarpur, but, part of the occurrence has taken place at Samastipur. The complaint petition is filed at Muzaffarpur as the occurrence took place at Islampur, Muzaffarpur, as the husband of the complainant resides at Muzaffarpur and the demand of dowry of rupees two lacs has been demanded on the date of marriage is not applicable whether the part of the occurrence in the complaint petition itself is that it has occurred. However, the next point that the allegation against the accused persons is concerned, there is specific allegation against accused 1 and 2 in the complaint petition. However, the allegation against accused 3 to 12 are quite vague, who are mother-in-law, gotni, nanad and her son and there is no specific allegation or any act have been attributed against them and there is nothing in the allegation attributing any act to accused 3 to 12. 6 10. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the allegation against petitioners 3 and 12 are quite vague and omni bus and no specific role attributed nor there is any act of commission or omission made against them, hence, allowing the prosecution to continue against them or taking cognizance without any material is totally non-application of mind by the Magistrate and abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the order, dated 25.03.2008, passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur, against petitioners 3 to 12 is hereby quashed. 11. The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed in part. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)