JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. On repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.

4. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.02.2016 passed in Complaint Petition No. 666/2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby, cognizance under Sections 406, 498(A), 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners.

5. Opposite party no. 2 has filed Complaint Petition No. 666/2015 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against the petitioners and other on 11.03.2015 stating therein that the father of the complainant is the employee of BCCL, Dhanbad and the complainant/opposite party no. 2 married with co-accused Suraj Kumar according to Hindu Rights and Customs on 23.05.2014 and after marriage she came to matrimonial home. It was also stated that the father of the complainant gave Rs.3 Lakhs through bank account to petitioner no. 4 towards marriage expenditure and Rs. 80,000/- was given to co-accused Suraj Kumar for purchasing motorcycle as gift and golden ornaments and other articles were also given by the father of the complainant. It was further stated that petitioner no. 2 Raju Paswan has taken Rs. 5 Lakhs from the father of the complainant on the statement that the same has been demanded by the petitioners as marriage expenditure. By way of playing fraud with the father of the complainant, petitioner nos. 2, 4 and 6 told that co-accused Suraj Kumar is working as T.T.I. at Nagpur and they also showed forged identity card of T.T.I. It was further stated that one month after marriage, she came to know that the co-accused Suraj Kumar is not working in the Railway department as T.T.I. and she told this fact to the accused persons who accepted the said facts and they threatened to kill if she will disclose to anyone. It was further stated that on 30.06.2014, all accused person demanded Rs. 4 Lakhs for constructing upper floor of the building and on refusal she was subjected to cruelty. It was also stated that due to ill treatment by the petitioners, the complainant became ill and on information her father came on 20.08.2014 and requested to treat the complainant to a doctor but the petitioners refused to do so and demanded Rs. 4 Lakhs on 20.08.2014. The father of the complainant took her and came at Dhanbad for her treatment. It was further stated that on 22.02.2015, the accused came at parental house of the complainant and demanded Rs. 4 Lakhs and on refusal they abused and assaulted her father.

6. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners took the Court to the solemn affirmation of the complainant and by way of placing that he submits that so far as the petitioners are concerned, there are omnibus allegations against them and no case under the aforesaid Sections, on which cognizance has been taken, is made out. He further submits that the husband of opposite party no. 2 has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna and the judgment was delivered in that case on 19.12.2015 directing to resume the conjugal life. He also submits that the complaint petition was filed by opposite party no. 2 on 11.03.2015 and the said complaint case was instituted prior to passing of the judgment dated 19.12.2015 in relation to petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He furthe