ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and the opposite party No.2.

2. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in G.R. case No. 3518/2016, arising out of Magadh Medical P.S. case No. 142/2016, registered u/s 498(A) of the IPC and u/s ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act whereby and whereunder discharge petition filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioners have filed a petition before this court vide Cr. Misc. No. 39094/2017 u/s 482 of the Cr. P. C., which was allowed vide order dated 11.09.2018 with a direction to the S.D.J.M., Gaya to consider the petition of the petitioners u/s 239 of the Cr. P. C. afresh. Pursuant to order of this court dated 11.09.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39094/2017, a fresh petition dated 27.10.2018 u/s 239 of the Cr. P. C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer to discharge them in the case. Rejoinder to the petition was also filed on 29.10.2018 praying therein to dismiss the petition and after hearing the parties the impugned order dated 18.10.2019 came to be passed.

4. Petitioner No.1 is Devar, petitioner No.2 is mother-inlaw and petitioner No.3 is father-in-law of the informant. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant was married with Rajiv Kumar on 01.12.2014. It is alleged that at the time of marriage Rs. 15 lakh ( 9 lakh through cheque and 6 lakh through cash) was given to petitioner No.3 apart from gold articles worth Rs. 5 lakh. It is further alleged that after few days of marriage mother-in-law, petitioner No.2, demanded four wheeler car and thereafter petitioner No.1 and husband of informant started abusing and harassing father of informant for dowry. After some time husband of the informant took her to Pune and there also she was assaulted and abused for dowry. Lastly, she was sent back to Gaya with her maternal uncle on 22.01.2015. In order to pacify the issue Panchayati was also held but there also her father was abused and beaten by the accused persons. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet u/s 498(A) of the IPC and u/s ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and others and thereafter cognizance was taken under the aforesaid Sections. Thereafter, discharge petition was filed before learned S.D.J.M. but the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.10.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind on the materials available on record passed the order in most arbitrary and illegal manner. It is submitted that during investigation not a single independent witness supported the allegation against these petitioners and discharge petition of the petitioners has been dismissed by the court below without appreciating the materials in its true perspective. It is submitted that three communications, including two legal notices, sent to informant by her husband requesting her to live a happy conjugal life or to have divorce were not taken into consideration. It is further submitted that in the entire FIR there is general and omnibus allegation against these petitioners and no specific role has been attributed to these petitioners. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are old inlaws of the informant and they are living separately since long back. It is further submitted that no date and time of occurrence has been indicated in the FIR. It is next submitted that in cases where entire family has been made accused with general and omnibus allegation and there is nothing specific, such prosecution may be quashed. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Apex Court reported 2022 Live Law (SC) 24, which reads thus:—

“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this