Specific allegations and overt acts are necessary for taking cognizance against the accused, and distant relatives should not be implicated without specific material.

G.S. Ahluwalia, J.

This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the order dated 6.5.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in unregistered Criminal Complaint Case No./2015 by which the court has taken cognizance against the applicants.

The necessary facts for the disposal of this application are that the respondent No. 2 had filed a criminal complaint against the applicants alleging that the applicant No. 1 is her mother-in-law, applicant No. 2 is her younger brother-in-law, applicant No. 3 is her sister-in-law, applicant No. 4 is the husband of sister in law and applicants No. 5 and 6 are maternal uncle-in-law. It was alleged that after the marriage when she came to her matrimonial house then for the first 15 to 20 days except her husband, the behaviour of all other members of her in-laws family was good. When she enquired from her husband as to what is the cause of his annoyance then he replied that he is a Sales Tax Practitioner and considering his status, her father should have been given a car. He further replied that as he was not willing to marry her and he has married her only under the pressure of his family members, therefore, she should live with her in-laws. The complainant also came to know about the illicit relations of her husband with some other lady and when she informed this fact to the applicants then they said either she should bring a car from her father or should learn to live in present situation. Thereafter, the applicants and other co-accused persons started beating her. They were also not giving food to her and were restraining her from talking to her family members. The applicants and other co-accused persons also used to extend threat to kill. As the applicants and other co-accused persons were planning to kill her, therefore, she gave an information to her parents. As the applicants and other co-accused persons were behaving with cruelty and, therefore, she went to her parents' house. Accordingly, it was alleged that the act of the applicants and other co-accused persons amounts to an offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 Part-II of IPC. The complainant had made a police complaint but the police registered an offence against her husband and father-in-law and since no action was taken against the present applicants, therefore, the complaint was filed.

2. The complainant in support of her complaint, examined herself and her witnesses Dhaniram, Shyam Sunder and Kishan Lal and the copies of the complaint to the different authorities were also filed. The copy of the charge sheet filed against her husband and the father-in-law was also filed.

3. The Trial Magistrate by order dated 6.5.2015 took cognizance against the applicants for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 Part-II of IPC. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Magistrate, the applicants have filed the present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973

4. The counsel for the applicants submitted that as the police had already filed the charge sheet against the husband and father-in-law, therefore, the Trial Magistrate should have stayed the proceedings under section 210 of Cr.P.C., 1973 It was further submitted that even otherwise the material available on record does not suggest the commission of offence by the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 Part-II of IPC. Even the distant relatives have been made accused without their being any specific overt act on their part. Omnibus and vague allegations have been made by the respondent No. 2 against the applicants.

5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to show that the applicants have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 Part-II of IPC. The meticulous appreciation at the stage of taking cognizance is not permissible and, therefore, the Trial Magistrate after considering the facts and circumstances of the case did n