Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 336 of 2007 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. One Rashmi Kiran, opposite party no. 2, lodged a complaint petition vide Complaint Case No. 3282(C) of 2007 against Ratnesh Kumar Dutt Verma and other family members including petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Sudha Verma, mother-in-law and petitioner no. 2, Nikhil Kumar Dutt Verma alias Mithilesh Kumar Verma, elder brother of the husband of the complainant. In the complaint petition allegation has been made, the complainant married with Ratnesh Kumar Dutt Verma (accused no. 1) on 10.3.2007 as per Hindu rites and culture. The father of the complainant was Senior Audit Officer in the office of the Principal Accountant General, Bihar (Audit), Patna whereas the complainant is Master in Arts degree holder was selected for UGC Fellowship for her research work. At the time of negotiation of marriage the father of the complainant was given an impression that they will consider the problem of the father of complainant and accordingly ceremony of engagement was held on 2.2.2007 and thereafter they started pressurising for cash money and various articles costly jewelleries and consumer goods. All the accused persons exerted pressure of conducting marriage from any luxury hotel and finally the father of the complainant agreed for holding the marriage ceremony at Chanakya Hotel, Veer Chand Patel Marg, Patna where the father of the complainant had to pay beyond his capacity. During the marriage father of the complainant gave costly articles, clothes for every member of in-laws of complainant. On second day of marriage in-laws of petitioner no. 1 mother-in-law asked her to show her jewelleries and other costly gifts and clothes under the pretext of keeping in the safe custody with promise to return the same but they did not return all her valuable gifts which was her Ishtridhan. After two days of marriage all the family members including petitioners started torturing/teasing her for not bringing sufficient articles and made insinuation of being a daughter of family of beggar claiming the husband being an Engineer and offer was made by others to pay the cash and costly gifts including Honda City Car. In the complaint petition Nanad and Nandoshi 'were also implicated having set of teasing for not bringing sufficient dowry and they used to interfere into the internal matter of family of her husband. Allegation has been made, they not only abused or assaulted the complainant in presence of father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband who themselves have actively participated in the assault. It has been claimed that accused persons used to give direction for making demands from her father otherwise she would be assaulted and tortured regularly till she would die and in discussion they used to challenge her chastity. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that father-in-law, mother-in-law, in presence of husband used to exert pressure to bring cash, jewelleries, Honda City Car otherwise she would be killed and they would be in position to get the aforesaid money in case of re-marriage. Allegation has been made, the complainant was not allowed to attend the research work in Patna University and threatened for discontinuation of her research work in case of non-payment of aforesaid dowry.

4. On the 6th day of marriage, the husband of the complainant left for Chennai and in his absence in-laws including brother-in-law (Bhaisur), Nanad and Nandoshi continued to torture, asked her to work as domestic maid in their house and coerce to perform chose (sic) by asking the servant not to do any work pressurizing the complainant to do all work