Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) ALL these applications arise out of the same case and as such, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2. Petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 400 of 2006 have prayed for quashing the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 685 of 2005, whereby, on the basis of statements made in the complaint petition and the statements of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of two witnesses examined at the enquiry stage, the Court below has found prima facie offence under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and has directed for issuing summons against the petitioners.
(3.) IN Cr. Revision No. 886 of 2011, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.9.2011 passed by learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in the said Complaint Case No. 685 of 2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for discharge has been rejected by the Court below.;