IMPORTANT POINT
Specific allegations are required to sustain charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A IPC against relatives of the husband; vague and omnibus allegations are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

(In CR. MISC. No. 51768 of 2015)

1. The present application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 23.07.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in G.R. No. 7891 of 2014 arising out of Phulwarisharif P.S case no 776 of 2014, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, has taken cognizance under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners.

2. The case of prosecution, is a vivid one narrated in detail, and is based upon the typed written report of the informant namely Nilofar Sheharyar dated 09.12.2014, submitted before Officer In-Charge, Phulwarisharif Police Station, wherein it has been alleged inter alia that:

a) Informant was married with Yonis Wahab on 28.03.2010 at Patna according to Muslim rites and 5 lakhs cash and article worth 5 lakhs were given but after marriage, her husband and his other family members started taunting her because no car was given as dowry and they used to make fun of her parents.

b) It is further alleged that both her "nanads" are married in the same colony and they spent a lot of time in their "maika" and they along with others also taunt her. The father in law and mother in law of the informant have, on the pretext of keeping the ornaments in the locker, taken the ornaments in their possession.

c) It is further alleged that the husband of the informant is an engineer working in Dubai and he too started pressuring for a car and one day the entire family assaulted her. When a complaint was made to her husband about an incident of torture, he did not do anything.

d) It is further alleged that in November 2010, the informant was taken to Dubai and there also, she was mentally tortured. She became pregnant and she came back to Patna where she gave birth to a female child on 12.08.2011 but cost of hospital was borne by her father and her husband did not pay anything and when she came to Patna she was taunted for giving birth to a female child and the family members said that they would perform another marriage of her husband for a male child. Thereafter, she again went to Dubai.

e) It is further alleged that her devar (Brother-in-law) was sent to Dubai and they started torturing the informant. It is alleged that her passport and mobile phone was snatched and she was not allowed to go outside the house and also told to get the expenses of the child from her father. Meanwhile, she again became pregnant and her husband wanted her to undergo a sex determination test and when she refused she was badly assaulted on 10.05.2013,where her husband tried to kill her by pressing her neck and somehow she was able to escape and informed her Mausi and Mausa in Abu Dhabi who came and took her.

f) It is further alleged that thereafter, her husband assured her of good treatment and so she again joined her husband but she was shocked to see that her mother-in-law and father-in-law were also present over there and they started torturing the informant for dowry. However, she came to Patna on 19.11.2013, and gave birth to a male child at Ramgarh but nobody came to see her. It is further alleged that the parents of the informant along with other relatives went to the place of her husband on 13.08.2014 where both the husbands of her "nanads" (sisters-in-law) were present from before who abused them and they flatly said that they will not accept the informant as wife of their brother. They have stopped the operation of the bank locker in order to prevent her from taking out her belongings and from January 2014 her husband has stopped talking to her and further from April 2014 he has stopped giving any expenditure and as a result she is staying with her two small children at her parental house.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all petitioners are in-laws of O.P. No. 2, who are living separately having no connection with the daily and dom