RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. Rashmi Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. No. one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 97 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 448 of 2002 including the order dated 25.07.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) THE prosecution story as would appear from the complaint petition initially filed by the informant is that the informant was married with Suraj Prakash Srivastava on 26.02.2001. Aftersolemnization of the marriage, the informant came to know that her husband was suffering from various diseases and when she asked her husband to take medicines, he became furious and threatened the informant and demanded more dowry. It is further alleged that when she went to her parents' house all the accused persons came there and started demanding dowry and had also assaulted the informant. After the complaint petition was filed the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for instituting a case and pursuant thereto Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 97 of 2002 was instituted. After registering the case investigation was conducted and on 17.07.2002 charge -sheet was submitted before the learned court below and, thereafter, vide order dated 25.07.2002, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad was pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order taking cognizance by submitting that the petitioner No. 1 is the uncle -in -law, petitioner No. 2 is the aunt -in -law and the petitioner No. 3 is the maternal -uncle -in -law of the informant. He has also submitted that all the petitioners are residing separately and has no concern with the husband of the informant or his immediate family members. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the complaint petition itself is vague and has no specific date and no specific offence has been alleged against the petitioners and only witha view to rope in the entire family members of the husband of the informant the original complaint case was instituted. He has further submitted that on the application filed by the informant before the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad the Officer In -charge, Jharia Police Station had enquired into the matter and as per the enquiry report submitted by the Officer In -charge, Jharia Police Station, the list of articles which were given at the time of marriage were returned to the informant. He has further submitted that the husband of the informant has already died and the informant has re -married with another person. He thus submits that so far as the petitioners are concerned, the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.;