P. Sam Koshy, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred against the order of JMFC, Durg, whereby the Court below has taken congnizence against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 509, IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and have registered a criminal case No. 3504/2015.

2. The complainant in the present case is the respondent No. 1. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner No. 3 is the daughter of the petitioner No. 1 and the sister-in-law of the complainant and petitioner No. 4 is the Husband of the petitioner No. 3 and as such he is the brother-in-law of the complainant.

3. The respondent No. 1 complainant got married to the son of petitioner No. 2 namely Punit Kumar i.e. respondent No. 2 on 27.2.2014. It was the second marriage for both the complainant as well as respondent No. 2. The marriage was solemnized at the Arya Samaz Mandir, Santakruz, Mumbai. At the time ofmarriage, the respondent No. 2-husband was working at New York, USA and the respondent No. wife-complainant was working with M/s. Renault a company based at Chennai and was posted also at Chennai. It is said that after the marriage, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 both had stayed at the residence of petitioner Nos. land 2 for a period of about three days and thereafter the respondent No. 2-Husband went for his employment to New York, USA and the respondent No. 1-complainant left for employment purpose at Channai. It is said that it was mutually agreed between the parties that the respondent No. 1 complainant i.e. wife of the respondent No. 2 shall go to New York only after getting sponsorship of green card and for which purpose in the month of March, 2014 i.e. very next month of the marriage she had again visited Mumbai and stayed for a brief period with the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. parents of Husband. This visit to Mumbai of the complainant was in order to complete the formalities required for getting sponsorship of green card for visiting USA. However, it is said that after some time the relationship between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 got strained and the efforts for reconciliation between the two at the instance of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 also failed. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 2 is said to have filed a divorce petition in the Montgomery Court, Texas, USA.

4. Subsequently, it is said that the respondent No. 1 wife had visited USA and stayed at her relatives house and tried to have a mediation with the respondent No. 2, but either side did not cooperate with each other and which finally failed. The respondent No. 1-wife then came back to India and filed a complaint case before the Mahila Police Thana, Durg on 8.9.2014 alleging harassment against the respondent No. 2 and his family members and the police authorities have registered a case under Section 498A, IPC.

5. It is said that Mahila Police Thana, Durg, issued summons to the petitioners, who, in turn, appeared before the authorities and conciliation meeting was held after which the police authorities did not register any offence against the petitioners herein. In between, the respondent No. 1 preferred a petition before the Family Court, Durg, seeking for injunction against the proceedings of divorce petition filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Montgomery Court, Texas, USA, but the Family Court dismissed the same on 25.9.2014. Against the said order, the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before this High Court which was registered as FAM No. 99 of 2014. The said appeal was also dismissed on 8.1.2015 with liberty to prefer a civil suit having jurisdiction. Meanwhile, it is said that the respondent No. 1 complainant again filed a complaint case before the JMFC, Durg for registering an offence under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners. The Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioners. Subsequently, an application for setting as