Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.10.2016, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Buxar, in connection with Rajpur PS case no. 230 of 2015 (G.R. no. 3282 of 2015), whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 341, 406, 504, 498(A), 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons including the petitioners herein.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, according to the complainant-informant is that the marriage of the complainant i.e. the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the co-accused person namely Sheshnath Pandey on 21.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals and sufficient gifts were given to her husband and in-laws. On the date of marriage itself, it is alleged that the father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 had demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, however, upon intervention of the family members, marriage had taken place, whereafter the opposite party no. 2 had gone to her matrimonial home. It is the further case of the opposite party no. 2 that the accused persons including the petitioners herein used to harass her on account of nonfulfilment of the demand for dowry as also they used to beat her and ultimately on 25.07.2011, she was beaten and ousted from her matrimonial home.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as far as the petitioners are concerned, they are the uncle-in-law and aunt-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 whereas the allegation levelled by the opposite party no. 2 is primarily directed against the husband and immediate in-laws of the opposite party no. 2, hence, the petitioners are not having any complicity in the alleged occurrence. It is also submitted that the husband of the opposite party no. 2, who is the main accused, has already died. It is next contended by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that the Ld. court below has taken cognizance against the accused persons in a mechanical manner, without any application of mind, hence, the same is required to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned APP for the State as also the Ld. counsel for the opposite party no. 2, though have vehemently opposed the present petition, however, they have not been able to show from the records regarding any specific allegation having been levelled against the petitioners and on the contrary, they have admitted that the impugned order dated 17.10.2016 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 [: 2010 (4) BLJ 1 (SC)], paragraph nos. 21, 23 to 26, 29, 32, 34, 35 and 39, whereof are reproduced herein below: –

“21. This Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the Court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.

23. This Court