Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This application has been filed to quash the order dated 11.02.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Barh (Patna) in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 35 of 2015/G.R. No. 374 of 2015, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant has alleged that she was a resident of Parbatta in the District of Khagariya and her marriage was solemnized on 6th July 2014 with one Sumit Sakarityayan and after four days she returned back to her maika with her father. She further alleged that her father, at the time of Durga Puja, requested her in-laws for her ‘Duragman’ but they were adamant to take Rs.5 lacs in cash for her ‘Bidai’. The father of informant although, requested that now he is not in a position to pay any further demand, as he had already paid as per his capacity, but her in-laws flatly refused his request. She further alleged that lastly on the date of occurrence i.e. 4th March, 2015, when she alongwith her father reached at her husband’s home, all her in-laws members came out from the house and started abusing them by using filthy language, and on protest, she was assaulted by fists and slaps. It is alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by several persons.

4. In aforesaid factual background of allegations, Mokama P.S. Case No. 35 of 2015, G.R. No. 374/2015 was lodged against the accused persons-petitioners for the offences under Section 498-A, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, where after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections as mentioned above and accordingly, cognizance was also taken for aforesaid sections by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate which is the impugned order for purpose of present petition.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is married sister-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is husband of petitioner no. 1, who are living separately much prior to this occurrence as marriage of petitioner no. 1 was solemnized much before the marriage of opposite party no. 2 with her brother namely, Sumit Sakarityayan. It is further submitted that the allegations, as available through narration of F.I.R. against the petitioners are very much general and omnibus in nature and prima facie it appears that their implication made only out of relation with harassing attitude, where motive appears ulterior and oblique.

6. In view of the aforesaid factual submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present proceeding against petitioners is fit to be quashed and set-aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083.

7. It appears from the office report dated 03.04.2024 that notice served upon opposite party no. 2 personally, but she failed to join the present proceeding.

8. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the application submitted that allegation as to commit cruelty and demand of dowry are available against the petitioners as per narration of F.I.R.

9. It would be apposite to reproduce para-13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek (supra), which are as under: –

“13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam vs. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court h