IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29560 of 2007 1. JAINAB KHATOON WIFE OF ABDUL MAZID 2. BIBI KALO, DAUGHTER OF LATE NUR MOHOMAD 3. MD. KASIM 4. MD. WASIL 5. MD. MURTAZA 6. MD. ASSIN ALL OF THEM ARE SONS OF ABDUL MAZID 7. PAKIJA KHATOON, WIFE OF MD. WASI 8. FARIDO KHATOON, WIFE OF MD. KASIM ALL OF THEM ARE RESIDENTS OF CHAKLA N IRMALI, SUPAUL, WARD NO.6, P.S. AND DISTT- SUPAUL ------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAMINA KHATOON WIFE OF ABDUL MAZID AND DAUGHTER OF MD. AIYUB , RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- KHARALI PUNARWAS, WARD NO.1, P.S. AND DISTRICT- SUPAUL. -------------- OPP.PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party No.2 : Md. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate ---------------- O R D E R 3 10-11-2008 The eight petitioners, who along with another have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case no.510 ( C) of 2006, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 15.12.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Supaul , whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners and the other for offences under Sections 323, 379, 498 A I.P.C. as also 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons to them. It appears that the complainant, Samina Khatoon, the wife of Abdul Majid filed the aforesaid complaint against her husband and eight others inter alia alleging that she was married to Abdul Majid - 2 - some eight years ago on 9.3.1998 as per Muslim customs and went with her husband to Chakla Nirmali and thereafter to Delhi where she lived with co-accused husband Abdul Majid. It is said that the first five years of marriage when the complaint had lived in her Sasural , the behaviour of the husband and in-laws was cordial and she was treated with honour and dignity and it was only thereafter that the accused persons started demanding Rs.25,000/- from her father and for non-fulfilment thereof began to torture her , for which a Panchayati was held. It is further alleged that on the relevant date , all the accused persons abused and assaulted her and ordered her to bring Rs.25,000/- from her father failing which she would be driven out from matrimonial home, whereafter the complainant left her matrimonial home along with her children , even as the accused persons snatched her ornaments. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have committed no offence. It was further sought to be submitted that from a bare perusal of the complaint petition it would be apparent that no specific overt act or allegations have been made against any of the petitioners and they have been dragged only because they happen to be the close relatives of her husband. The learned counsel also sought to point out the apparent facts in the complainant’s petition by pointing out that she herself in the complaint petition had submitted that the first-five years of her marriage had been lived in bliss and cordiality. The other aspect which was pointed out was that although occurrence is said to have taken - 3 - place from 8.2.1998 till 31.7.2006 the initial five years were said to have been spent in bliss . The learned counsel further sought to point out that as per recital in the complaint petition, the complainant went to live in Delhi along with her husband shortly thereafter. Neither the learned A.P.P. nor the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 were able to refute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners or support the impugned order. I have had occasion to go through the complaint petition as also the statements of the complainant on S.A. the primary allegation appears to be directed against the husband and accusations against these petitioners appear to be of general and omnibus in nature with no specific overt act being alleged against any of them. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution of the petitioners herein would be an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly the impugned order so far as the petitioners are concerned is quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-