Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dt. 3.1.2017, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram (Rohtas), in connection with Complaint case no. 941 of 2016 (Trial No. 702 of 2017), whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and others under Sections 498(A) and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, according to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 is that her marriage was solemnized on 11.03.2011 with one Pankaj Shashi as per Hindu rites and rituals, during the course whereof, the parents of the opposite party no. 2 had given a sum of Rs. 3 lacs in cash by way of dowry, however, the accused persons had been demanding jewellery, nonetheless, the opposite party no. 2 had gone to her matrimonial home and after some time, the accused persons started pressurizing the opposite party no. 2 to ask her father to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lacs and jewellery by way of dowry, however, upon refusal to do so, they started harassing and beating her. It has also been stated in the complaint petition that the opposite party no. 2 was of the view that with passage of time, the situation would improve, however the accused persons did not stop harassing her and on 15.02.2015, they had tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her body, however, upon alarm being raised, the neighboring people and police had arrived, whereafter a compromise was arrived at in between the opposite party no. 2 and the accused persons and then the opposite party no. 2 had again gone to her matrimonial home. It is next alleged that after few days, the accused persons again started harassing the opposite party no. 2 and on 07.08.2016, they had beaten her as also snatched her jewellery and clothes, whereafter the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and others had made her forcibly sit in a car, taken her to an unknown place and dropped her there, whereafter they had fled away, however, somehow she had reached her parental home.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as far as the petitioners are concerned, petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 while petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law, petitioners no. 3 and 4 are brothers-in-law and petitioners no. 5 and 6 are sisters-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 and they do not have any role to play in the alleged occurrence. It is also submitted that the incident in question is a dispute in between the husband and wife i.e. the opposite party no. 2 and her husband namely Pankaj Shahi. It is also submitted that the petitioners are living separately from the opposite party no. 2 and her husband, hence, they are not having any role to play in the alleged occurrence, nonetheless, no specific allegation has been levelled in the complaint petition qua them. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners in a mechanical manner and without application of judicial mind, hence the same is required to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have though vehemently opposed the present petition, however, they have not been able to show that any specific role has been attributed to the petitioners in the alleged occurrence and on the contrary, they have admitted that the impugned order dated 03.01.2017 is a cryptic order and does not depict that any material is available qua the petitioners herein so as to warrant taking cognizance of the offences alleged, whereas the same has been passed in a mechanical manner without any application of mind.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

6. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010(7) SCC 667, paragraph nos.