ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners are the married and unmarried sisters-in-law of the informant/opposite party no. 2 who seek quashing of the order dated 16.03.2017 passed in Giriyak P.S. Case No. 133 of 2015 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Bihar Sharif whereby cognizance has been taken against them also under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. It has been alleged in the FIR that the informant/opposite party no. 2 was married to Gulshan Kumar. For the marriage, the father of aforesaid Gulshan Kumar took Rs. 12,70,000/- from the father of the informant/opposite party no. 2. Even then, she was being pressurized for bringing additional dowry and non-fulfillment of the same led to mental and physical torture. It has been stated that on one occasion when she was working in the kitchen, two of the petitioners tried to set her on fire but she could anyhow be saved because of timely arrival of neighbours. She has stated several acts of omission and commission by all the members of her matrimonial family.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the subject FIR viz. Giriyak P.S. Case No. 133 of 2015 was registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet whereupon cognizance has been taken by order dated 16.03.2017 which is under challenge.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that vague, general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the sisters-in-law of opposite party no. 2 in a bid to implicate all the family members of her husband.

6. The petitioner no. 1 is said to have been married in the year 2011 and has been staying at Jharia in her matrimonial home. Similarly, the petitioner no. 2 is also married and stays happily in her matrimonial home at Gaya. At the time of filing of the case, petitioner no. 3 was still unmarried.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 however has submitted that there is specific accusation against the petitioners also and cognizance of the offence and not of the offenders is taken and whatever has been stated by the petitioners in their defence could be tested at the stage of discharge or in the trial.

8. This Court notices that without observing the formalities under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an order has been passed by the learned Magistrate for registration of the FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by opposite party no. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

9. In Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015)6 SCC 287, the Supreme Court has cautioned that the recourse under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should not be taken in a routine manner. In Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others (1976) 3 SCC 252 the Supreme Court has held that the provisions contained in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. Such an investigation embraces the entire/continuous process which begins with collection of evidence under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. and ends with a report or charge sheet under 173 Cr.P.C. Similarly in Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705, a two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, after examining the provisions contained in 156(3) Cr.P.C. held that whether jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind in such a case and cannot simply refer the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, the Magistrate must record his satisfaction for a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a case. Simil