IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12681 of 2007 1. Molvi Md. Abulais @ Abulais, son of Moulana Md. Ishaque, 2. Moulana @ Md. Ishhaque, son of Gul Mohammad, 3. Bibi Babila Khatoon, wife of Moulana Md. Ishhaque, 4. Moulvi @ Md. Noushad, son of Moulana Md. Ishhaque, 5. Bibi @ Nusrat Jahan, daughter of Moulana Md. Ishhaque, all of village Taran Duba, PS Joki Hatt, district Araria – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Bibi Sumaiyya, daughter of Mustar Abdul Karim, village P.T. Dumaria, PS Mahalgoun, District Araria – opposite parties. … 5 25.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 17.10.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Araria in C.A. Case No. 1964/2005 by which cognizance for the offence under section 498A of the Penal Code has been taken. In this case notice was served on opposite party no.2. A vakalatnama has also been filed by Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate of this court. However, no body appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 to pursue this matter. The allegations in the complaint petition are that there was a demand of a motor cycle and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry by the husband. It is said that opposite party no. 2 was ill treated by petitioner no.1 i.e. her husband and other family members for the aforesaid reason. There is no specific allegation against any of the accused persons except the husband by whom the demand has been made. Counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure 2 which is a Talaqnama pronounced on 25.2.2005. Learned counsel also refers to 2 Annexure 3 which is a Panchnama in which the Panches in a meeting accepted the fact that petitioner no.1 had pronounced divorce. It is submitted that the present complaint case has been filed after six months of the divorce. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 had paid the dues to opposite party no.2 including the Mehr amount and the expenses for Iddat period. It is argued that the cost of articles have also been returned. These facts, according to counsel for the petitioners, are also found in the Panchnama. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that opposite party no.2 has now remarried. All these aspects can be considered by the court below at the time of framing of charge. On perusal of the entire facts this court comes to a finding that as far as petitioners 2 to 5 are concerned, the allegations are omnibus and vague and as such no case under section 498A of the Penal Code is made out against them, who are the father, mother, unmarried sister and brother of petitioner no.1. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance against petitioners 2 to 5 is hereby quashed. This application is allowed in part. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)