JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Ritu Kumar assisted by Mr. Mahavir Poddar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned P.P. for the opposite party-State.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 28.09.2016 passed in Complain Case No.1195/2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

3. The opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint petition stating therein that the marriage between the complainant and petitioner no.1 was solemnized on 08.05.2014 at Jamshedpur. On demand of the petitioner no.1, a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs in cash along with ornaments and other articles worth Rs.10 Lakhs were given by the parents of the complainant to the petitioner. From the very beginning of stay of complainant in her matrimonial house at Mumbai (Maharashtra), the petitioners used to comment regarding less quantum of dowry paid to them by the side of complainant. They started demanding Rs.5 Lakhs from the complainant asking her to bring the alleged amount of Rs.5 Lakhs from her parents. It was also alleged that the accused persons forcibly threatened her and deposited a sum of Rs.8.60 Lakhs in their accounts from the salary of the complainant as she was employed and she was earning a good salary. She was paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- only for her expenses. On 05.11.2014, complainant was removed from her matrimonial house by the accused persons came to residence of the complainant at Jamshedpur and they were paid Rs.2 Lakhs. On such payment, complainant was again tortured by the accused persons and she went with her father though later on she came back to her matrimonial house. She reported the said incident to the Mumbai police on 20.05.2015 and 22.05.2015, but no action was taken by the Mumbai police as against the accused persons. Importantly, a compromise was entered into between the parties at the residence of the complainant in Jamshedpur on 21.09.2015 in presence of witnesses wherein a mutual settlement between them was arrived in which total amount of Rs.11,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to the complainant by the accused persons. It was further alleged that till date only Rs.5,00,000/- is deposited by the accused persons, but the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and the ornaments belonging to the complainant which is in possession of the accused persons are not yet returned to her by the accused persons.

4. Pursuant to that the learned court has taken cognizance vide order dated 28.09.2016 under Sections 379, 323, 384, 420, 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

5. Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order on the ground that there is no ingredient of Sections on which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. He submits that the amount of Rs.11 Lakhs have already been paid to opposite party no.2. He further submits that mutual agreement has been entered between the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2, whereby, it has been decided that petitioner no.1 will pay a sum of Rs.11 Lakhs to opposite party no.2 in full and final settlement of all present and future claims and maintenance, both the parties are required to exchange the ornaments given to each other and both the parties will file mutual divorce petition. He further submits that for non-filing of mutual divorce, the complaint case has been filed. He also submits that the matter is civil in nature and the cognizance order is bad in law. He further submits that there are judgments to that effect that if the nature of complaint is civil in nature, the criminal proceeding will not proceed.

6. Per contra, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation by the concerned court and she has stated about the torture of taking money forcefully from her and the allegations have been made in solemn affirmation agai