Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioners have preferred the application under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Complaint Case No. 1318C of 2018 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences against the petitioners under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the opposite party no. 2, Jyoti Kumari, filed a complaint on 25.10.2018 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif alleging, inter alia, that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner no. 1 on 07.05.2017, at which time her father is said to have spent about Rs. 6 lakhs towards cash, ornaments and household articles. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the father of petitioner no. 1 (now deceased) represented that his son was employed in the Railways and would secure permanent appointment in due course. After marriage, the complainant stayed for a short period at her matrimonial home at village Shahbegpur. She again went there on 13.06.2018, when, as alleged, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and two brothers-in-law started subjecting her to cruelty and petitioner no. 1, at their instigation, demanded Rs. 1 lakh for purchase of land. It is alleged that she was abused, assaulted and denied food, compelling her to inform her father. Her parents and brother thereafter took her to Mokama Police Station and subsequently to the Women’s Counselling Centre, whereafter reconciliation took place and she was taken back to her matrimonial home. The complainant further alleges that on 12.07.2018, petitioner no. 1 again assaulted her in presence of other in-laws for not meeting the demand of money and, despite her illness, no medical care was provided. On 13.10.2018, her parents visited the matrimonial home and took her away for treatment. She states that she was pursuing a teacher-training course at Noorsarai, District Nalanda. It is further alleged that her ornaments and articles gifted at the time of marriage were unlawfully retained by her husband and in-laws, and therefore she was unwilling to return to her matrimonial home.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners is false and concocted. He further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the husband, petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner no.3 is the dewar of the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties can be allowed to ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court. He submitted that the matter be referred for mediation.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and the learned APP submitted that opportunity shall be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute amicably.

6. Heard the parties.

7. It is commonly seen in the society that the entire family members, as well as, relatives are made accused along with the husband to face criminal prosecution. The Apex Court has demarcated the manner in which the complaints are entertained by the learned District Court.

8. The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife is well settled, at the same time, the Apex Court has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.

9. From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner no.3, who is the dewar of the opposite party no.2. In light of the recent ju