JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both cases, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl.P.P. for the State in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012 and Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013 and Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012.

2. In both the cases, common facts, FIR and the order taking cognizance are under challenge, that’s why both the petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties.

3. In Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013 prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.06.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Sector-IV (Sector-VI) P.S. Case No. 141 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1542 of 2012 [arising out of C.P. Case No. 822 of 2012], pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

4. In Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012, prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding and the FIR, being (Sector-VI) P.S. Case No. 141 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1542 of 2012 [arising out of C.P. Case No. 822 of 2012], registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 498-A/504 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

5. In Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012, petitioner No. 1 is brother-inlaw (elder), petitioner No. 2 is sister-in-law (elder) and petitioner No. 3 is also elder brother-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 and in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013, the petitioner is husband of O.P. No. 2.

6. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that she was married to accused Ashok Kumar on 28.05.2004 by an expense of more than Rs. Ten lacs. She claims to have some documentary proofs in this regard. She has further alleged that she was taunted by her in-laws, due to her dark complexion and comparatively inferior looks. She was made to do domestic works, due to her looks. Even her husband did not supported her. She has further alleged that her husband was very obedient and attached to his elder brothers and his brother in laws/accused nos. 5 and 7 in the complaint case) and his bhabhi. She has further alleged that she remained in her sasural for about one and half months. She has further alleged that petitioners along with other accused herein told other family members that the father of the complainant has promised to provide a car of about Rs. Four lacs, after few months. She has further alleged that in December, 2005 she was assaulted by her husband at the instigation of all the accused persons. The complainant further alleged that she gave birth to a female child at Bokaro and just after delivery all the accused persons started to allege that the child was not of her husband. A Panchayat was held to settle the issue but due to the attitude of the accused persons it failed to settle the dispute. She has further alleged that all the accused persons, barring her husband and accused No. 7 assaulted her on 21.08.2012 for kidnapping her minor child.

7. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Ashok Kumar is the husband of O.P. No. 2. He submits that so far as other accused persons are concerned, they are brother-in-laws and sister-in-law and they have unnecessarily been made accused in a case, registered under Section 498-A of the IPC. He further submits that the marriage of petitioner Ashok Kumar and O.P. No.2 was solemnized in the year 2004 and for restoration of conjugal life, a petition was filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada (Bihar) on 26.04.2011, wherein the O.P. No. 2 has appeared and filed her written statement on 21.11.2011. He further submits that a petition was filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenanc