JUDGMENT :

Soni Shrivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Patna City in Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 476 of 2018 (G.R. No. 3404 of 2018) whereby and whereunder the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and summons have been issued.

3. The present petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and the married sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, who have been made an accused in Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 476 of 2018 dated 09.07.2028 with the allegations of demand of dowry and torture having been committed upon the informant i.e. opposite party no. 2. There are also allegations of some physical assault and that of contracting of a second marriage by the husband of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it would be evident from a bare perusal of the first information report that the allegations made therein are general and omnibus in nature with no specific allegations on these petitioners. It has also been submitted that the husband of the informant, Ranjit Rahul, made all efforts to protect the conjugal relations with the informant and even filed a matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide Matrimonial Case No. 5481 of 2018 before the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna wherein notices were also issued to the informant, however, she chose not to appear in the said matrimonial case and the matter was put for ex-parte hearing leading to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights having been passed in favour of the husband. As far as the case of these petitioners are concerned, a specific averment has been made in paragraph-9 of the petition that the informant and her husband had been living separately from the petitioners and they had no concern with the day to day family affairs of the informant or her husband. It has further been submitted that totally vague and baseless allegations of demand of dowry and subjecting the informant to torture has been imputed against the petitioners whereas they have never indulged in the acts as alleged by the informant and only by virtue of they being the family members of the husband of the informant they have maliciously been arrayed as accused in the present case. The counsel for the petitioners has thus submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioners is totally a frivolous and vexatious one and is fit to be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the quashing of the impugned order taking cognizance on the ground that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons, and hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned, as such, it warrants no interference.

6. This Court had the occasion to go through the first information report and the allegations made therein which only disclose general and omnibus allegations and rather relates to some pressure being exerted on the informant for applying for a loan for the purposes of purchase of a house. The allegations further relate to keeping of some articles belonging to the informant and a specific allegation with regard to a second marriage has been made against her husband Ranjit Rahul while maintaining that she is a working woman and she was ill treated when she had gone to her matrimonial house to collect her belongings. Before going on to the law laid down by way of various judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to criminal