Quashing of cognizance orders requires specific allegations against each accused; general or omnibus allegations against in-laws in matrimonial disputes may lead to abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Present petition is being filed by the petitioners for quashing the cognizance order dated 07.03.2024 as passed by learned S.D.J.M, Patna in Complaint Case No.1255 (c) of 2018 whereby and where under the petition of discharge under section 245 of Cr.P.C. dated 19.09.2023 filed by the petitioners has been rejected in mechanical manner and without duly appreciating the available materials in aforesaid complaint case in which the cognizance under section 498 (A) of the I.P.C and under section 4 of the Dowry prohibition has been taken against the petitioners.

3. Prosecution story in brief speaks that O.P. No. 2/ complainant solemnized her marriage with one Prem Ranjan on 13.07.2013, as per Hindu custom. The brother of O.P. No. 2 gifted precious items and cash of Rs. 5 lakh on aforesaid occasion. It is further alleged that co-accused persons also told her to take back the motorcycle given in the marriage and arranged two lakh for purchase of four wheeler and when she refused to obey their illegal demand the husband of O.P. No. 2 assaulted her physically and started ignoring her, whereafter all accused persons started torturing her in various manners. Accused no.3 alleged to attempt for illicit relationship. The complainant further stated that lastly on 27.10.2013 when complainant insisted to visit her paternal house the husband of O.P. No. 2 tried to kill her by strangulation and other co-accused persons snatched away all her jewelry and ousted her from her matrimonial house. She made all possible attempts to compromise with situation but the accused persons are adamant as not to redress the issue.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that present complaint case against petitioners including other accused persons was lodged by complainant/ O.P. No. 2, when her husband namely, Prem Ranjan filed a Divorce case in year 2017 which is pending before the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna as Matrimonial case No. 1005 of 2017. It is submitted that in reiteration to aforesaid divorce case all the above-named petitioners, who are married brother-in-laws and sister-in-law of O.P. No. 2 implicated with general and omnibus allegation qua alleged cruelty as said to be committed upon O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that the implications of petitioners appears non-occasioned and primarily due to their relations with husband of O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that the thrust of allegation is available against husband namely, Prem Ranjan, who is not the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid, the impugned cognizance order qua petitioners, who are not connected otherwise with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband in any manner, appears fit to be quashed/ set aside.

5. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

6. Notice served upon O.P. No. 2 personally, whereafter sufficient opportunity was also given to her as to join present proceeding but she failed to appear either in person or through advocate.

7. Learned APP appearing for the State pointed out that petitioners being in-laws actively participated in the occurrence.

8. It would be further apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case (supra), which read as:-

12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Ins