JUDGMENT

P. K. MOHANTY, J. — In this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner challenges the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh in I.C.C. No. 2 of 1999 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in issuing process against the petitioners.

2. The short fact of the case is that on 24.11.1997, opp. party No. 1 the present complainant lodged an F.I.R. with Rourkela Mahila P.S. alleging therein that she had married one Rakesh Chauhan on 30.5.1993 and since after the marriage, her husband was reluctant to consumate the marriage and was making persistent demand of additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs and a purchased house at Bombay, even though she had carried sufficient dowry articles approxi¬mately worth Rs. 1 lakh 50 thousand at the time of her marriage. The in-laws i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Pramila (who is staying at Bombay) have been prevailing on her husband to insist for demand and they have restrained him from cohabiting with her, so long their demand is not fulfilled. The parents of the informant having failed to comply with the demand, they all started inflicting both mental and physical torture on her. Just after 10 days of the marriage, they drove her out and told to go with her brother with the condition that she can come back on fulfilment of the demand. However, pursuant to the negotiation with her brother, her father-in-law received her in October, 1996 since her husband was absent in matrimonial home for years together. However, he (the father-in-law) behaved irrationally and abnormally. During her stay there, the in-laws again started torture, used pungent words at her and at times assaulted her for no faults and so on. It is alleged, they also extracted her signature on a plain paper. She was asked to work like a maid servant. Her husband reached Rourkela in the last week of September, 1997 and then her husband, father-in-law and broth¬er-in-law arrived in her brother's quarter and picked up quarrel and enquired as to whether she had arranged the money for her husband’s business at Bombay and whether her brother was purchas¬ing a house at Bombay. On her answering in negative, her husband brutally assaulted her by giving successive kicks and fist blows an they left the place after giving threats. It appears that after investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against her husband Rakesh Chand Chauhan and Radhashyam Chauhan, her father-in-law. On 12.6.1998, the learned S.D.J.M. by order dated 16.6.1998 took cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A/34, I.P.C. against the aforesaid two accused persons.

3. The informant-opp. party filed an application on 7.12.1998, which was taken up by the learned Magistrate on 8.12.1998 finding that there was no evidence against the afore¬said three accused persons, rejected the protest petition in G. R. Case No. 1906 of 1997.

4. The present complaint petition was presented on 5.1.1999 by the informant in the aforesaid G. R. Case, as com¬plainant against the present set of accused persons, who are the mother-in-law, brother and the married sister of her husband. The learned Magistrate recorded the initial statement of the com¬plainant-opp. party.

5. It appears from the complaint petition itself at para¬graph 6 thereof that after 10 days of marriage, the complainant was sent to her parents house with her brother and at that time all the three accused persons along with her husband and father-in-law warned the complainant not to return to their house without complying with the demands. In paragraph 7, the allegation ap¬pears to be that the aforesaid three accused persons including Radheshyam Chauhan instructed Rakesh, the husband of the peti¬tioner, before his departure to Bombay not to keep any physical relationship with the complainant unless and until her brother fulfilled the demand. They were also not making any arrangement for h