ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.12.2003, passed by the learned C.J.M, Dhanbad in Dhanbad (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 209 of 2003, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC. 3. An FIR was instituted on the Fardbeyan of the informant wherein it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was married to the son of the petitioners namely Ajay Kumar Sao and out of the said wedlock, couples were blessed with two children. It is alleged that son in law of the informant died in the year 1999 and after his death, daughter of the informant was provided compassionate appointment in the Railways and after her transfer, she was posted in Dhanbad. It is alleged that petitioners and other in laws of the daughter of the informant used to demand money, which she had received after the death of her husband and on account of such non fulfillment of demand, daughter of the informant was subjected to torture both mentally and physically at the hands of the in laws. It is also alleged that the informant along with his wife came at Dhanbad and a settlement was arrived at and thereafter they returned back to Patna. Allegation has been levelled that on 31.3.2003, when the informant and his wife went to meet their daughter in her office, she was told about physical and mental torture committed upon her. Lastly, it has been alleged that on 1.4.2003 in the morning, the informant was telephonically informed that their daughter has committed suicide and when they came in the house, they found their daughter dead. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Dhanbad (Sadar) P.S. Case No.209 of 2003 was instituted. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted only against one Vijay Sao and so far as petitioners are concerned, who happen to be parents in law of the deceased, their involvement was not found and final form was submitted in their favour. However, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by an order dated 12.2.2003 was pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners and had summoned the petitioners as well as one Vijay Sao, against whom, only charge-sheet was submitted. 5. However, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by an order dated 12.2.2003 was pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners and had summoned the petitioners as well as one Vijay Sao, against whom, only charge-sheet was submitted. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no iota of evidence to suggest that the petitioners have taken part in commission of murder of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 12.12.2003 does not contain any reason given by the learned Magistrate as to what led him to disagree with the final form submitted by the police and take cognizance and summon the petitioners to face the trial. Learned counsel submits that in absence of any specific reason for differing with the final form, order dated 12.12.2003 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has submitted that the petitioners being parents in law of the deceased had a hand in such murder. It has been submitted that although in course of investigation it was detected that the petitioners were not in a position to move anywhere but it has come that the petitioners used to walk daily in the park and considering such evidence as well as circumstantial evidence, which could be gathered by the investigation, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance and summoned the petitioners to face the trial. 7. It appears from the charge-sheet/final form submitted by the police that the allegations against the petitioners were found to be untrue. After charge-sheet was submitted, impugned order dated 12.12.2003 was passed and the culpability of the petitioners was found only with respect to the fact that although in course of investigation it was found that the petitioners were not in a position to walk but actually the fact was revealed otherwise. There appears to be no circumstantial evidence against the petitioners so as to disagree with the final form submitted by the police. There appears to be no circumstantial evidence against the petitioners so as to disagree with the final form submitted by the police. In absence of proper reasonings for the learned Magistrate to differ with the final form submitted by the I.O., the order dated 12.12.2003, passed by the learned C.J.M, Dhanbad in Dhanbad (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 209 of 2003, being not sustainable in the eyes of law is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad to pass a fresh order in accordance with law based on the materials collected during investigation, expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 8. This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.