Sheema Ali Khan, J.

1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners are the brother-in-law and his wife (gotni) of the complainant. The allegations against the petitioners are general in nature. It is alleged that they used to demand dowry and were interested in getting the husband of the complainant married to the sister of the petitioner no. 2. There is no specific allegation as to when these two persons indulged in the said assault.

3. During the stage of evidence before framing of charges, the complaint who was examined as PW-3 has stated that petitioner no. 1, the brother-in-law lives in Jabalpur and works as a Clerk in income Tax Department at Jabalpur and the petitioner no. 2, his wife, lives with him. This has come in the cross-examination at paragraphs of the deposition. Apart from the statement made on behalf of the complainant, the complaint petition does not disclose specific dates on which these two petitioners are said to have indulged in assault.

4. In the circumstances, I find that it would not be in the interest of justice to proceed with the trial as far as these two petitioners are concerned. For this purpose, I may refer to the judgment of Ramesh & Others V/s. State of T.N. [(2005)3 SCC 507 in similar facts when the accused persons were not living with the family, living in a different State altogether, the Supreme Court quashed the cognizance taken against the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law.

5. I accordingly quash the order dated 22.4.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 2729 of 2003 (Trial No. 1230 of 2006) as far as it concerns the abovenamed petitioners.

6. This application is accordingly allowed.