The main legal point established is that unsubstantiated allegations and lack of evidence cannot justify the continuation of criminal proceedings, and unfounded charges should be quashed.

In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010, including the order dated 23.08.2014, passed by Shri M.K. Tripathy, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. An FIR was instituted by the opposite party no. 2, in which it was stated that her marriage was solemnized with Manish Kumar on 18.05.2003 in accordance with Hindu Rites & Customs. Since the husband of the petitioner was working at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory at Patna, she had started living with her husband at Patna. It is alleged that in September, 2004, he switched to ICICI Bank , Durgapur in the post of Collection Manager and during this period he had developed relationship with the petitioner no. 3. On 22.08.2005, the informant was blessed with a female child at Jamshedpur and thereafter the behavior of her husband had changed and he had started mental and physically torture upon her. It is alleged that there was a demand of Rs. Two lacs from the father of the informant, who refused to pay the said amount. The husband of the informant subsequently left Durgapur and went to Guwahati where he joined Tata Motor Finance Company, which job was also left by him and he subsequently joined HDFC Bank and thereafter Vodafone, where he is at present working as Credit and Collection Head. It is alleged that when the informant went with her daughter to the flat of her husband, the presence of an unknown lady was found and on being asked about the relationship, she was abused with filthy language and was driven out from the house. It is alleged that the parents in law were asked for assistance by the informant, which they refused. When the informant was admitted at T.MH. Hospital Jamshedpur on 13.10.2000, neither her inlaws nor her husband had enquired about her well being.

3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010 was instituted. Upon conducting an investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police on 31.05.2012 for the offence punishable under sections 498(A)/494 of the Indian Penal Code and under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act only against the husband of the informant and the petitioners were not sent up for trial. Subsequently on conducting further investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and against petitioner no. 3 for the offences punishable under sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to submission of chargesheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur vide order dated 23.08.2014.

4. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. and Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2.

5. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that on investigation, the case against the petitioners were not found proved and only at the behest of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan, Chaibasa, further investigation was ordered, which led to submission of chargesheet against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that even in the FIR the petitioner no. 3 was not made an accused and the FIR was instituted only against the husband of the informant as well as her inlaws. It has also been submitted that after the chargesheet was submitted only against the husband of the informant no protest petition was filed by the informant and on her application, further investigation was ordered leading to submission of chargesheet , which is not in accordance with the settled principles of law. Learned senior counsel submits that so far as petitioner no. 1 and 2 are concerned, no allegation has been levelled against them with res