(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ara in Ara Mahila P.S. Case No.283 of 2016 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences inter alia under Sections 341, 323, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in-laws and there is omnibus and general allegation made in the first information report against them. He submitted that the genesis of institution of the first information report is matrimonial discord and incompatibility between the informant and her husband. The implication of the relatives of the husband is just in order to coerce the blackmail. He submitted that in an identical circumstance, the Supreme court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 1 PLJR 10 quashed the proceeding instituted against them. In the said case, the Supreme Court clearly held that mere casual reference of name of family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of their active involvement in the offence is not sufficient for taking cognizance.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contested the matter. He submitted that the case of the petitioners is quite different from the case of Geeta Mehrotra (AIR 2013 SC 181) on which the petitioners have placed reliance. He contended that in the first information report there is clear allegation against the petitioners that they repeatedly subjected the victim to cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. According to him, the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the first information report would certainly attract ingredients of the offence under which cognizance has been taken.