Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance was taken on 08.01.2015. Applicants approached before this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and this Court disposed of the application directing the applicants to move discharge application through counsel. It is further submitted that applicants moved discharge application, which was rejected on insufficient grounds. No prima facie case is made out against the applicants. A general role has been assigned against all the applicants. It is further submitted that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the married Nand of the opposite party no. 2. Applicant no. 4 is the husband of applicant no. 3. Applicant no. 5 is the maternal uncle. Applicant nos. 6 & 7 are the Jaith of the opposite party no. 2. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants referred to the contents of the FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation and further argued that a general role has been assigned against the applicants, they are distant relative of the husband of opposite party no. 2 and are living at their houses situated at district places. It is also argued that they would not be benefited in any way with the demand said to have been made in the matter. It is further submitted that it is also not clear from the prosecution evidence that applicants have caused injury to the opposite party no. 2. Since husband and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 are facing trial, therefore, continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case on the basis of general role assigned against the applicants is the abuse of process of law. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010Laws(SC) 886, Ram Saran Varshney and others Vs. State of
