ORDER 1. The four petitioners who alongwith six others have been made to figure as accused in Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.101 of 2004 have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal prosecution so far as they are concerned including the order dated 2.2.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 498A I.P.C. against all the accused named therein including the petitioners. 2. One puja Devi impleaded herein as Opp. Party No.2, filed a Complaint Case. No. 575 of 2004 inter alia alleging that, her marriage with accused Sanjay Kumar Singh was solemnized on 7.7.2002 whereat her, father gave a substantial amount of dowry but that notwithstanding her husband demanded a further sum of Rs. 80,000/-. as additional dowry and when she refused to bring the same as more than enough had been given, all the accused allegedly abused and assaulted her with slaps and fists and also told her that there was no place for her in the house unless the demand was fulfilled. The complainant claims to have gone back to her parental home where she narrated her tales of woe. A panchayati was convened whereat accused nos. 1 and 4 were declared to be offenders whereupon they apologized and brought back the complainant to the matrimonial home. It is alleged that a few days later, her husband, mother-in-law, nanad and dewar tried to burn her by sprinkling kerosene oil as a result whereof she suffered burn injuries for which she was treated at the Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. She returned to her parental home where it is alleged that all the accused persons came at about 4 P.M. on 18.5.2004, armed with deadly weapons and started assaulting her and her family members and also tried to strangulate her as they were apprehensive that she would file a case for demanding dowry. It is also alleged that while departing they took away articles worth Rs. 11,000/-. 3. Upon the complaint petition being transmitted to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. the aforesaid Bahadurpur P.S. Case was recorded under Sections 498A, 323, 379 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also alleged that while departing they took away articles worth Rs. 11,000/-. 3. Upon the complaint petition being transmitted to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. the aforesaid Bahadurpur P.S. Case was recorded under Sections 498A, 323, 379 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After due investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet only against the husband for offences under Sections 498A and 323 I.P.C. but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having perused the case diary differed from the police report and took cognizance against all the accused persons only for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to assail the impugned order on two grounds. First, that the petitioners admittedly not being relatives of the husband as would be apparent from a reading of the complaint petition, they could not be made liable for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. more so when they had no concern with the affairs of the informant or her husband and in-laws. 5. The second contention of the petitioners was that they had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. In this connection, it has been submitted that petitioner no. 4 had filed a criminal case, being Bahadurpur P .S. Case No. 184 of 2003 against the parents of the informant wherein charge-sheet had been submitted against them. In retaliation Parvati Devi, the mother of the informant, had filed Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 185 of 2003 against all the petitioners wherein the informant figured as a charge-sheet witness. Then again Ram Pyari Devi, a neighbour of the petitioners had filed Complaint Case No. 264 of 2004 against Kanhai Singh, the father of the informant and two others for offences under Sections 376/511/34 I.P.C. which was eventually compromised. On this premise it was sought to be submitted that there was reason enough for the informant to brook animosity against the petitioners. 6. The best person who could have thrown some light or denied the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners was the informant but she for reasons best known to her has chosen not to appear in this case notwithstanding that she was duly served with notice. Therefore, the assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioners remain unrebutted. 7. The best person who could have thrown some light or denied the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners was the informant but she for reasons best known to her has chosen not to appear in this case notwithstanding that she was duly served with notice. Therefore, the assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioners remain unrebutted. 7. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners carry sufficient substance and force and in the absence of any rebuttal cannot be disputed. 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance, so far as the petitioners are concerned as also their criminal prosecution is quashed.