Order The petitioners herein have preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal prosecution of Complaint Case No. 1202 of 2005 corresponding to T.R. No. 1306 of 2006 including the orders dated 27.2.2006 and 9.3.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh respectively. The cognizance of the offence was taken under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party no. 2 appeared and filed I.A. No. 867 of 2006 for vacating the stay order dated 4.5.2006 passed by this court whereby and where under stay was granted of further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1202 of 2005 corresponding to T.R. No. 1306 of 2006 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh. . 3. The brief fact of the prosecution case as stands narrated in the complaint petition is that the Opposite Party No. 21 Complainant was married to the• petitioner no. 1 on 22.6.2003 and after marriage she came to the matrimonial home, Daru where she was living peacefully but after sometime accused persons including the petitioners started demanding Rs. 50,000/- in cash, Hero Honda Motorcycle as well as a gold chain as additional dowry to which the complainant explained that her brother had already spent on the eve of her marriage a lot according to his capacity and now he was not capable to meet out such demand. She made pursuation to the accused persons in this regard but of no avail and on information her brother with her relations came to her matrimonial home and requested the accused persons to behave properly and pursuant to that she remained peacefully for sometime. 4. It is alleged that on 19.8.2005 she was assaulted by the accused persons and was ejected from her matrimonial home. Again when she visited her matrimonial home on 11.12.2005 she was assaulted by her mother-in-law, elder brother of her husband as well as wife of the elder brother of her husband and she was again removed from her matrimonial house. On 16.12.2005 the husband of the opposite party no. 2 came to her residence at Hazaribagh, demanded the dowry and assaulted her extending threat that she would be killed in case of failing to fulfill his demand. On 16.12.2005 the husband of the opposite party no. 2 came to her residence at Hazaribagh, demanded the dowry and assaulted her extending threat that she would be killed in case of failing to fulfill his demand. It was alleged that the other accused viz. mother, elder brother and wife of his elder brother abetted him for making such demand. The matter regarding the atrocities was informed to the Women's Police Station (Mahila Thane) Hazaribagh and the accused persons came to the police station and reconciled the dispute but after sometime their atrocities increased, hence the complaint case. After enquiry under section 202 Cr.PC. and finding a prima facie case, the S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh took cognizance of the offence as aforesaid against all the four accused persons including the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case without any basis. On the facts and nature of allegations as made in the complaint petition by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, a report was called for from the Women's Police Station, Hazaribagh and accordingly report was submitted (Annexure-2) narrating that the husband of the opposite party no. 2, Sanjay Prasad Sinha was unemployed whereas opposite party no. 2 was leading a modern life, adversely affecting their conjugal life. The opposite party no. 2/ complainant was attached with a private institution. It was further narrated that on 13.9.2005 with the help of the staff of Mahila Thana, a rented house was arranged for her at Ramnagar, Hazaribagh. However, it was informed that the opposite party no. 2/complainant got her husband assaulted with the help of the staff of her institution and without informing the police station, and in absence of her husband, she started living in a separate room by the side of the house of one Shivnarayan Singh. There was counter allegation in the report of the police that she had alleged against in-laws only for squeezing them economically to lead a modern life. The parents of the complainant were not alive and her brother had arranged her marriage and that he was also helpless allowing the complainant to lead her life according to her will. 6. Advancing his arguments learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the submission of the complainant/opposite party no. The parents of the complainant were not alive and her brother had arranged her marriage and that he was also helpless allowing the complainant to lead her life according to her will. 6. Advancing his arguments learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the submission of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 the case record was transferred to the Court of the S.D.J.M. under section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without taking cognizance and hence it is fit to be quashed. 7. Reliance has been placed on the decision reported in 1992(1) P.L.J.R. 484 in which the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Dilip Kumar Kundu and Ors. Vs. Madan Ch.Dey and And. held as under: - "From a bare perusal of Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Pre 3dure, it is evident that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot transfer a case' to another court either for enquiry or trial unless he takes cognizance of the offence. There cannot be any doubt that when a Magistrate before whom a complaint petition is filed examines the complainant on solemn affirmation, cognizance of the offence alleged must be held to have been taken by the Magistrate." In the same decision the Division Bench came to the conclusion by observing that "It is, therefore, clear that for the purpose of taking cognizance what is required is application of mind on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of proceeding under the provisions of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when the sane is done the court can be said to have taken cognizance of the offences." The Division Bench further held as follows: - "It is now well known that an enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is held in order to enable the court to come to a conclusion as to whether any prima facie case has been made out as against the accused persons named in the complaint petition or some of them. Such a power is a wide one. It is further well known that process cannot only be issued by the court before whom a complaint petition is filed but also by a transferee court." Connotation "cognizance" has no where been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a power is a wide one. It is further well known that process cannot only be issued by the court before whom a complaint petition is filed but also by a transferee court." Connotation "cognizance" has no where been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is held that for the purpose of proceeding under the provisions of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate applies his mind it is said of having taken cognizance of the offence. Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure devises procedure for taking cognizance of the offence, viz on receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, upon a police report of such facts or upon information received from any person other than police officer, or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed, which empowers the court to take cognizance of such offences as within its competence to inquire into or try. Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is related to making over of cases the Magistrates (1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him. (2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to such other competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by general or special order, specify, and thereupon such Magistrate may hold the inquiry or trial. 8. In the present case the complaint was filed by the Complainant/Opposite Party NO.2 on 20.12.2005 in the Court of C.J.M. Hazaribagh. She was examined on solemn affirmation after a few days by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and thereafter, on application of judicial mind, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh called for a report forwarding the copy of the complaint petition under section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the Mahila Thana, Hazaribagh. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh on receipt of such report sent the record in the court of the S.D.J.M. Hazaribagh under section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enquiry and disposal. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh on receipt of such report sent the record in the court of the S.D.J.M. Hazaribagh under section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enquiry and disposal. From careful perusal of the said order dated 27.2.2006 it is clear that a preliminary enquiry was held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh by way of recording the statements of the complainant on solemn affirmation after a few days of the filing of the complaint petition in his court and after application of judicial mind, he called for a report and on receipt of the same he transferred the case for enquiry and disposal and it shall be deemed therefore, that the learned Chief Judicial Magitrate, Hazaribagh took cognizance of the offence finding a prima facie case of alleged offence though not specifically mentioned. It is not the fact that provision of Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been complied with on the issue of transfer of the complaint case in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh only upon being satisfied that a prima facie case existed of certain offence, transferred the Complaint Case No. C/1202 of 2005 to the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh by order dated 27.2.2006 for enquiry and disposal of the case. The taking of cognizance by the C.J.M., Hazaribagh in the present case is reflected by his act of examination of complainant on solemn affirmation and the witness, calling for report from the respective police station and the application of judicial mind thereon and it shall be deemed that the C.J.M. took cognizance of the offence as reported before him under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. After enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie offence against the accused persons including the petitioners under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and directed the complainant/opposite party no. 2 to file requisite for summons to the accused persons including the petitioners. 10. 2 to file requisite for summons to the accused persons including the petitioners. 10. The next point which requires consideration is that the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as also against the other accused persons is not maintainable for want of sanction from the competent authority and therefore, the cognizance if at all taken therein is illegal, uncalled for and without jurisdiction. For that reliance has been placed on the decision reported in 2006(1) JCR 101 (Jhr) [: 2006(1) JLJR 141 ]. In Saranan Chattopadhyaya vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), Bench of this Court held,-- "the cognizance taken under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was absolutely bad-in-law in view of the Bihar Amendment of 1976, whereby obtaining of sanction was condition precedent for taking cognizance for the offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act." 11. In the present case it is evident that the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh without obtaining sanction has taken cognizance under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is not maintainable and hence taking of cognizance by him particularly under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed. 12. Under the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition and hence it is dismissed with the above modification.