ORDER : Invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the two petitioners have questioned the legality of the order dated 16.08.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar P.S. Case no. 12 of 2011 whereby and whereunder while differing with the findings of police report, the court below took cognizance of offence under Sections 498-A/341/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and directed to issue summons to the petitioners. 2. The prosecution case, which is based on the complaint case of the complainant Naz Fatima, which was subsequently forwarded to the police station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) for institution of a case on the allegation that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Md. Ashif on 11.07.2009 according to Muslim Custom and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial home in West Bengal and started living with her husband and mother-in-law. On the instigation of the two petitioners, the Mama Sasur (maternal in-law)Abdul Rashid, who was residing with his family near the house of her husband, her husband and mother-in-law started torturing and demanded Rupees 12 Lakhs for purchasing a flat in Kolkata. On 02.02.2010, she came to her parent‘s house and narrated about the demand of the accused persons. Whereafter, her brother along with other persons went to her matrimonial house and requested the accused persons not to torture the complainant for additional dowry as they are not in a position to meet their demand but the accused persons disclosed their intention that if the demand is not fulfilled, she will be divorced by her husband. Finding no option, her father agreed to pay Rupees Five Lakhs but as the assured amount could not be given within the promised period, again she was subjected to torture by her husband and mother-in-law and even she was assaulted mercilessly by them. At one moment on the instigation of other accused persons including the petitioners, her husband tried to press her neck with an intention to kill her but she anyhow saved herself. Thereafter, she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 04.04.2010. At one moment on the instigation of other accused persons including the petitioners, her husband tried to press her neck with an intention to kill her but she anyhow saved herself. Thereafter, she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 04.04.2010. In a Panchayati, the Punches tried to resolve the dispute but the accused persons did not agree and again demanded Rupees 12 Lakhs for purchasing a flat in Kolkata. Thereafter, the aforesaid case bearing Hazaribag Sadar P.S. Case No. 12 of 2011 was instituted on 06.01.2011. 3. The police after investigation, submitted the charge sheet against Md. Ashif-the husband and Saleha Khatoon-the mother-in-law of the complainant-informant-Naaz Fatima and submitted final form against the other accused persons including the petitioners. The court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after going through the police report finding prima-facie case took cognizance of the offence as indicated above vide order dated 16.08.2012 against these two petitioners also besides the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant and directed to issue summons against these two petitioners also to face trial. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while assailing the order impugned taking cognizance of offence as bad in law and perverse, seriously contended that the court below while differing with the police report took cognizance of offence against the petitioners without applying its judicial mind in a mechanical manner and without assigning any cogent reason. It was also submitted that it is a settled principle that the court while exercising some judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the facts and materials before him but the court below even without discussing the evidence available on the record differed with the police report and took cognizance. Learned counsel in support of his submission further relying upon the case Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi and another; 2012(2) SCC 188 [: 2012(1) JLJR (SC)344] and the case GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. M/s. India Infoline Limited; 2013(4) SCC 506 submitted that the court below has to record his satisfaction about the prima-facie case and the role being played for initiating criminal action. 5. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi and another; 2012(2) SCC 188 [: 2012(1) JLJR (SC)344] and the case GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. M/s. India Infoline Limited; 2013(4) SCC 506 submitted that the court below has to record his satisfaction about the prima-facie case and the role being played for initiating criminal action. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel representing the State seriously contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has ample powers to disagree with the final report, which has been filed by the police authorities under Section 173 (2) of the Code and to proceed against the accused persons dehors the police report and has also jurisdiction to ignore the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Office and independently apply his mind to the facts and evidences emerging from the investigation. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a case Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another; (2014) 3 SCC 306 [:2013(3) JLJR (SC) 342] wherein the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Kishun Singh Vs. State of Bihar; (1993) 2 SCC 16 [: 1993(2) PLJR (SC)2] has been accepted. Hence, there is no occasion for this court to interfere in the order taking cognizance. 6. Apparently, while differing with the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer, the court below has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case and the evidences upon which the court below is relying upon to differ with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. G.H.C.L. Employees Stock Option Trust (supra) has held as follows: “In the order issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case as against respondent nos. 2 to 7 and the role played by them in the capacity of Managing Director, Company Secretary or Directors which is sine qua non for initiating criminal action against them.” On bare reading of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the instant case has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima-facie case and the reasons for differing with the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and in a mechanical manner without applying his judicial mind took cognizance of offence and directed to issue summons to these petitioners. 7. 7. In that view of the matter and in the light of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am constrained to hold that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners cannot be sustained. Hence, the order taking cognizance dated 16.08.2012 is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remanded to the court below with direction to pass a fresh appropriate order considering the evidences and materials on record. The court below is further directed to record a reasoned order showing prima facie case against the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition (Cr.) is, hereby, allowed.