ORDER : Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 3. On the complaint filed by the appellant herein, FIR dated 21st January, 2012 was registered under Sections 376 and 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, after investigation, when challan was filed and the arguments were heard on the charge, the learned Trial Court passed orders dated 05th July, 2012, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 417 and 418 of the I.P.C. only. In the opinion of the Trial Court, no case under Sections 376 and 312 of the I.P.C. or under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out inasmuch the complainant had lived with the respondent with her own consent and the cohabitation was consensual. Both the parties challenged the orders. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, she challenged the order of the Trial Court not taking cognizance of offences under Sections 376 and 312 of the I.P.C. Her Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court. 4. As far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, he challenged the orders dated 05th July, 2012 of the Trial Court taking cognizance of offence under Sections 417 and 418 of the I.P.C. This petition of the respondent is allowed by the High Court vide impugned orders dated 22nd July, 2015 which is to the following effect: "The parties are present in Court and it appears both are adults and with consent they cohabitated and hence evidently no offence under Sections 376 and 312 I.P.C. is made out or any criminal offence, for that matter. Hence, the application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 5.7.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar in Dumraon P.S. Case No. 18 of 2012 is hereby set aside." 5. The order is fallacious on the face of it. As pointed out above, the High Court had to consider whether in the petition filed by respondent No. 2 herein, cognizance of offence under Sections 417 and 418 of the I.P.C. was properly taken or not. This aspect has not been dealt with at all and the order of the Trial Court taking cognizance under the aforesaid provisions is set aside with the observations that no offence under Section 376 and 312 of the I.P.C. is made out. This aspect has not been dealt with at all and the order of the Trial Court taking cognizance under the aforesaid provisions is set aside with the observations that no offence under Section 376 and 312 of the I.P.C. is made out. The issue of taking cognizance of offence under Sections 376 or 312 of the I.P.C. was not even before the High Court in the aforesaid petition. 6. We, accordingly, set aside the orders passed by the High Court and remand the case to the High Court to consider the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the respondent No. 2 on its own merits. 7. The appeal stands disposed of.