RAJENDRA MENON, J.

1. In this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioners who are senior citizens and are more than 70 years of age, are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent-complainant seek quashing of Complaint Case No. 2323(C) of 2012 registered against them in which cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, on 05.06.2013 for offence under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is the case of the complainant that she was married to the son of the petitioners on 15.02.2002. Out of the wedlock a daughter was born to her on 12.06.2003 and a son was born on 25.10.2009. She claims to be residing in Patna but after marriage she is staying with her in-laws in Lucknow. It is alleged that illegal demand of dowry was made and she was harassed for nonpayment of dowry and contending that the same amounts to an offence under Section 498A/34 IPC the complaint was filed.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are senior citizens. Overwhelming medical papers in support of various ailments suffered by the petitioners suggest that they are bedridden and are staying in Lucknow and have never come to Patna to commit any offence. That apart, from the body of the complaint and the averments made therein it is alleged that only vague and unspecified allegations with regard to harassment is made without any specific details or specific act of commission or omission attributable to the petitioners indicated in the body of the complaint.

4. Accordingly, contending that based on the aforesaid narration of facts as it transpired from the complaint, no case is made out for prosecuting the petitioners under Section 498/34 IPC and prayer is made to quash the complaint. In support of the contention, reference is made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012) 10 SCC 741] and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460] to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case the complaint is liable to be quashed.

5. Finally, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2015) 11 SCC 260] to say that the complaint is liable to be quashed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On a perusal of the record it is seen that in the complaint filed except for making vague allegation with regard to demand of dowry and harassment by the petitioners and their son that also still while residing in Lucknow with them the complaint case has been filed in Patna. If the averments made in the complaint which are vague and general in nature are analyzed in the light of the backdrop of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it would be seen that the complaint prima facie seems to be absurd, unspecified, does not give any detail of the acts of commission and omission which constitutes ingredients necessary for commission of the offence, are general in nature and has been made in omnibus manner. There is no allegation of torture and beating. Only general allegations of harassment are made out. In her statement given before the court on 18.12.2012 which forms the basis for registration of the complaint the complainant only says that she was married to the son of the petitioners on 15.02.2002. After one month of the marriage incorrect allegations were levelled against her and she was scolded. It was alleged that she has not brought T.V., Fridge and other domestic materials and they used to demand jeweleries and more rupees. This seems to have occurred in the year 2002 and 2003 but no complaint in this regard was made at that point of time. It is said that thereafter she came to Patna and stayed for more than two-and-a half years in Patna. Thereafter her husband came and took her to Lucknow where she started living with him and in the year 2009 she gave birth to a boy