The Court can interfere at the trial stage if the allegations are general and omnibus, and there is nothing in the law restricting the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Jha counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. S.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.08.2014 passed in connection with Boriyo (J) P.S. Case No. 325 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 711 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Sahibganj.

3. Initially P.C.R. Case No. 478 of 2013 was filed which was converted into F.I.R. under the provision of 156(3) of Cr.P.C. wherein it was alleged that the complainant was married with the son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely Sanjay Kumar Kashyap according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Nehru Place, Koyla Bhawan of M/s. B.C.C Ltd., Dhanbad in which Honda Amaze Car and Cash, Golden Chain and other ornaments amounting to rupees five lacs was given by her family.

It was further alleged that other family members started to make pressure upon her for more dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, she has been tortured mentally and physically and she was also stopped food.

It was further alleged that family members of the complainant also tried to pacify the matter but in vain.

It was also alleged that on 21.06.2013 the brother of the complainant lodged a complaint at the police station at Dhanbad upon which the police brought the accused person at police station, but the brother of the complainant could not allow to arrest them and they gave bond to take her Bidai within one month and with the help of the police she came to Sahibganj at residing at her naihar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was split up and the husband of the O.P. No. 2 namely, Sanjay Kumar has been convicted and he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and he has preferred appeal . He submits that the petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are sister-in-laws of the O.P. No.2 and they have been unnecessarily roped in the present case. He further submits that the entire allegation of torture is made out against the husband and the occurrence is said to be occurred in Dhanbad whereas the present case has been lodged at Sahibganj. He further submits that there is lack of territorial jurisdiction. He submits that in case of such nature entire family has been roped. He, on instruction, submits that trial is going on, witnesses are being examined, in these background if they are asked to face trial, will amount the abuse of process of law. He submits that the Court is having jurisdiction even if trial is proceeded if the case is found to be malicious, the court can exercise its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. On the other hand Mr. S.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the trial has proceeded, witnesses are being examined. He further submits that the case is made out if O.P. has been thrown away from the matrimonial house complaint can be maintained at Sahibganj. He submits that at this stage, the Court may not interfere with.

6. Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits trial is going on.

7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. as well as documents brought on record. Looking into F.I.R. it appears that there are only general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. Allegations are there against the husband of the O.P. no.2 who has been convicted and he has been directed to undergo R.I. for two years by the learned trial court for which he has preferred appeal which is still pending. In this background if general and omnibus allegation is made out against the inlaws, the Court is required to consider whether at this stage when the trial has proceeded the Court can interfere or not. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punis