Order Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.7.2013 passed in Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No. 10 of 2013 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that FIR was lodged against the petitioners and one Suli Bhuiyan alleging therein that all the accused persons committed offence of dowry death. The matter was investigated upon. During investigation, the police did not find any culpability on the part of these petitioners, though the police did find culpability on the part of one Suli Bhuiyan not for an offence under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code but for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The court did differ from the conclusion arrived at by the police and took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code without assigning any reason whatsoever and thereby the court committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. 4. From perusal of the impugned order, it does appear that the court while taking cognizance of the offence under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has simply recorded that sufficient material is available in the case diary to proceed against the petitioners but what are the material against the petitioners, it has never been mentioned and thereby the order cannot be said to be a speaking order. 5. Here at this stage, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, [ (2012)2 SCC 188 ] as well as decision rendered in a case of M/s GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. M/s India Infoline Limited [2013(2) East Crl. Cases, 326 (SC)] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that the court, in such situation, requires to pass order by assigning reason. But here in the instant case, as has been stated above, no reason can be said to have been assigned for holding that prima facie materials are there, order impugned is fit to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. But here in the instant case, as has been stated above, no reason can be said to have been assigned for holding that prima facie materials are there, order impugned is fit to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. However, the matter is remanded back to the court concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. 6. In the result, this application stands disposed of.