Specific allegations and prima facie evidence against co-accused are required in matrimonial cases to justify taking cognizance of the offense, and vague and omnibus allegations may constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

Vinod Kumar Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 19.1.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 604C/12 by which the learned SDJM has been pleased to order issuance of processes against the petitioners after finding a prima facie case against them under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition, is that one Alka Mishra has filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa stating, inter alia, therein that she was married with Prakash Kumar as per the Anand Margi customs and thereafter she came to her sasural and was living there. It is also stated that at the time of marriage her father has given 2 lakhs rupees in cash and articles worth 3 lakhs rupees. It is also her case that she became pregnant but after that the accused persons started torturing her both physically and mentally which she has informed to her father and brother who had taken her to Banaras and got her treated where she gave birth to a child. It is also her case that thereafter her father called a panchayati of Anand Marg but the accused persons did not consider their request and the husband of the complainant came and tried to get her signature on a plain paper. Further case of the complainant is that the accused persons came to her father's house and asked him to send her to which her father did not agree, due to which the accused No. 1 (husband) became angry and demanded Rs. 3 lakhs and other accused persons supported him and on her intervention, she was assaulted and abused.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Complaint Case No. 604C of 2012 was instituted against the petitioners and other accused persons.

4. The aforesaid case was transferred to learned SDJM for enquiry and trial, who after enquiry finding a prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ordered for issuance of processes against the petitioners vide order dated 19.1.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 604C of 2012 and the aforesaid order is under challenge in this application filed by the petitioners.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no specific allegation has been attributed against any of the petitioners and what has been stated in the complaint petition is completely vague and omnibus and on the basis of such allegation proceeding cannot be allowed to continue as it will be an abuse of process of court. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited some decisions of the Supreme Court, i.e., the case of Neelu Chopra v. Bharti: (2009)10 SCC 184, Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another: (2012)10 SCC 741 : [2013(1) PLJR (SC) 10] and Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another: (2010)7 SCC 667 : [2010(4) PLJR (SC) 36] and has submitted that in the aforesaid decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of specific allegation and prima facie case against co-accused the order taking cognizance will be bad in law and that will be an abuse of process of court. It has further been submitted that Supreme Court has also noticed that in the matters arising out of matrimonial cases it is a tendency to implicate all family members in the FIR, casually mentioning their names and claiming their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance against them would not be justified. On the basis of above discussions, it is argued that in the present case the complaint petition shows nothing specific against any of the petitioners and not an iota of evidence against each of the petitioners, rather allegations leveled against them are completely vague and omnibus and, as such, in view, of above decisions of the Supreme Court the order issuing processes