JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 13.6.2008 passed in Danapur Police Station Case No. 503 of 2006 by which the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 are married sister-in-laws of the Opposite Party No. 2, whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 5 are the husband of petitioner nos. 1 and 4. In the First Information Report, there is a general allegation which says, Apart from this statement, there is no other material in the First Information Report against these petitioners. 4. In the case diary, there is a general and omnibus allegation against the sister-in-laws whereas it is stated in paragraph nos. 146, 153 & 156 of the case diary that the brother-in-laws used to encourage the father-in-law and the mother-in-law to make a demand. It is also apparent from the records that these petitioners do not reside with the father-in-law and the mother-in-law and as such it is difficult to believe that they would be present in the house to torture the Opposite Party No. 2 on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 5. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Neelu Chopra and Another V/s. Bharti, reported in 2009 (10) SCC 184 and also in the case of Ramesh & Ors. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2005(2) PLJR (SC)193 that a general and omnibus allegation against all the family members should not be encouraged and such bald statements made in the First Information Report or in the case diary show that the informant is somewhat over to implicate as many members of the family as possible. 6. Considering the allegations and the statements in the case diary, I do not find that any offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against these petitioners and the inclusion of the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.6.2008 passed in Danapur Police Station Case No. 503 of 2006 as far as the petitioners are concern, is hereby quashed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.6.2008 passed in Danapur Police Station Case No. 503 of 2006 as far as the petitioners are concern, is hereby quashed. 8. In the result, this application is allowed.