Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Nobody appears for opposite party no.2 inspite of valid service of notice.

2. This application has been filed for quashing order dated 4.10.2019 passed in Banka Mahila Police Station Case No. 34 of 2019, GR No. 1803 of 2019, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for alleged offence under Sections 498 (A), 341, 323/34 of the I.P.C. as well as Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Petitioners are alleged to have subjected the opposite party no.2 to cruelty and harassment for non-fulfilment of dowry demand.

4. While denying the allegations, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are respectively mother-in-law and elder brother-in-aw of opposite party no.2. Allegation of torture and harassment is general and omnibus and no specific overt act has been alleged against these petitioners. As a matter of fact, opposite party no.2 is a quarrelsome and she voluntarily left her matrimonial house. Present case has been filed only to pressurizing the petitioners for partition of the family property. It is next submitted that the complaint petition does not disclose any distinct role or contribution of these petitioners in the alleged occurrence and merely on the basis of general and omnibus allegation, the petitioners have been made an accused in this case and continuation of proceedings against these petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the court. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court passed in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that petitioners are named in the FIR and they were instrumental in torturing the informant/opposite party no. 2, both mentally and physically. Counter affidavit has already been filed by opposite party no.2 which reflects that there is sufficient material on record against the petitioners and it cannot be said that prima facie no case is made out against these petitioners. Hence, no interference is required by this court at this stage.

6. Having heard submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perusing the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that merely by making general allegations that the petitioners were involved in physical and mental torture of the informant/opposite party no. 2.

7. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances, and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta (supra) and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 [: 2022 (2) BLJ 75 (SC)], and in absence of any specific role attributed to these petitioners, it would be unjust if the petitioners are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial.

8. In view of the foregoing discussions, order of cognizance dated 4.10.2019, passed in Banka Mahila Police Station Case No. 34/2019, GR No. 1803 of 2019 is hereby quashed with respect to these petitioners.

9. Accordingly, the present quashing application is allowed.