ORDER : Heard Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, learned A.P.P. for the State . and Mr. Raghwendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2. 2. Through this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the ORDER :dated 22.6.2004 passed by Sri Satyandra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, in Complaint Case No. 2375C of 2003, whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under Section 1198A I.P.C. 3. The complainant Suprira Ghosh Roy filled the aforesaid complaint against her husband and the relatives of the husband inter alia stating that her marriage with Tarun Kumar Ghosh Roy was solemnized on 25.3.2006 whereat her parents had gifted furnitures, almirah, gold ornaments weighing 10 bhar and cash worth Rs. 35,000/-. It is also alleged that after marriage she came to her sasural at Bhagalpur and in the night of suhagrat the husband neither talked to her nor slept with her and there was no cohabitation. It is alleged that accused persons in execution of their conspiracy with ill-motive did not allow the complainant to come .back to her naihar on 2.5.2003 on the occasion of ashtamangla and they started ill-treating her. She claims to have stayed in the matrimonial house for 2% months, in course whereof there was no cohabitation with the husband and when she questioned him on this issue he and the family members would become adamant and would threaten the complainant with dire consequences. She claims to have fallen sick due to the mental and physical torture and she was never attended to by any of the accused persons during her ailment and eventually upon her ringing her brother, he brought her back to the naihar. Eventually a demand for a motorcycle and a wristwatch was made. It is alleged that her husband has been examined by the doctor and it was revealed that he' was impotent and incompetent of participating in any sexual intercourse from the very beginning and having suppressed this material fact they had dishonestly and with fraudulent intention solemnized the marriage of the complainant with the husband. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case only because the complainant did not want to live with the husband. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case only because the complainant did not want to live with the husband. It was also submitted that no specific allegations of any overt act has been attributed to any of the petitioners and the allegations are all general and omnibus in nature. In this connection the learned counsel sought to point out from the deposition of the complainant in her statement under SA that she wanted divorce from her husband (petitioner no. 1) and had lodged the instant complaint with the motive of seeking divorce. 5. When the complainant herself had deposed on SA without alleging any torture or commission of overt act by the petitioners that she did not want to live with her husband and had filed the instant complaint only with the purpose of seeking divorce, I am unable to understand how the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offences under Section 498A I.P.C. more so when the allegations were omnibus and general in nature and no specific incidences or their relevant dates and time had been stated or submitted. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances the prosecution of the petitioners amounts to be an abuse of the process of the Court and cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly this application is allowed and the impugned ORDER :taking cognizance is hereby quashed.