JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these applications, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Md. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 3. In these applications the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 660 of 2013(S) including the separate orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D. P. Act. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint petition does not make out a criminal offence against the petitioners. Learned counsel while referring to Cr. M.P. No. 1597 of 2015 submits that the petitioner in the said case is the married sister-in-law of the informant who was neither present at the time of marriage nor afterwards as she resides in a separate place and she has been roped in to further suggest that only to wreck vengeance, the criminal case has been instituted. So far as the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1039 of 2016 and 1032 of 2016 are concerned, it has been submitted that the petitioners are the parents-in-law of the informant against whom the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that none of the incidents had taken place at Lohardaga and therefore, the court at Lohardaga does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. Learned counsel in support of the various contentions has referred to the cases of Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2015) 11 SCC 769 , Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 , Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State o Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Ramesh and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 3 SCC 507 . 6. Md. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 however has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has stated that the complaint petition specifies allegations levelled against each of the petitioners. 6. Md. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 however has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has stated that the complaint petition specifies allegations levelled against each of the petitioners. It has been stated that the allegations against the petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 1597 of 2015 is replete in the FIR itself and so far as the parents-in-law are concerned, the same also specifies involvement which has surfaced in the complaint petition. Learned counsel further submits that the submissions advanced by the petitioners are by way of defence which cannot be decided under the inherent powers of this Court. 7. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the complaint case which was initially instituted was visited. It has been stated therein that the opposite party no. 2 was married to Sariq Nawab Khan on 07.06.2011 in Lohardaga. It has been alleged that a dowry of Rs. three lacs was demanded in cash prior to the marriage and after the marriage was solemnized, the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of one Maruti car. It has been alleged that the said demand was communicated to the father of the opposite party no. 2 who had requested the accused persons to come to Lohardaga to settle the issue, but however the car which was demanded was not provided. Subsequently, the father of the opposite party no. 2 came to Ranchi and had taken her for treatment and a Panchayati which was convened subsequently which had come to a decision that the opposite party no. 2 be taken back to Mumbai, but the accused persons did not heed to the dicta of Panchayat and ultimately, Complaint Case No. 237 of 2013 was instituted. The complaint case on being sent to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was registered as Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2013. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet pursuant to which vide impugned orders, cognizance was taken for the offences under Section 498A/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. So far as the petitioner in Cr. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet pursuant to which vide impugned orders, cognizance was taken for the offences under Section 498A/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. So far as the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1597 of 2015 is concerned, she is the married sister-in-law of the informant against whom as per the complaint petition allegations have been levelled of demanding a Maruti car and pressurizing the husband to demand the same. Further allegation has been levelled that the said petitioner along with her mother and husband used to make assault upon the informant as a result of which she had suffered some injuries. So far as the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1039 of 2016 is concerned, he happens to be the father-in-law of the informant against whom an allegation has been levelled of making a demand of Rs. three lacs in cash. As regards the mother-in-law of the informant is concerned, who is the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1032 of 2016, she in concert with her daughter (petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1597 of 2015) had committed assault upon the informant as per the allegations levelled in the complaint petition. 8. The question of territorial jurisdiction which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is negated simply on account of the fact that a part of the incident had taken place at Lohardaga with respect to the demand of Maruti car and therefore, the court at Lohardaga does have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her contention that the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1597 of 2015 who is the married sister-in-law of the informant does not have any concern with household affairs of the opposite party no. 2 in the matrimonial house, has referred to the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra), the factual aspect of which case was different inasmuch as, the case of unmarried sister-in-law was quashed as it was held that there was no ingredients making out a case against her and that there was no specific allegation made out in the complaint. Similarly in the case of Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (supra), it was contended that the allegations are vague and omnibus so far as the appellant nos. 2 to 5 are concerned. While referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the allegations against the married sister-in-law are also general and omnibus and she resides elsewhere, but she has been roped in the criminal case as it has become a tendency to rope in all the family members of the husband. However, the factual aspect as could be derived from the complaint petition is otherwise inasmuch as, the complaint petition clearly reveals about the acts of the petitioner in demanding a Maruti car and subjecting the informant to assault. The said allegations cannot be said to be vague and omnibus in nature and in such circumstances, the judgments under reference are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in Cr. M.P. No. 1597 of 2015. 9. Reference has also been made to the case of Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (supra) as well as the case of Ramesh and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra). 10. In Ramesh and Others (supra), it was while considering the FIR held that there was no allegation in connection with unlawful demand of property/dowry against the sister-in-law. In the said case, derogatory remarks were made against the informant and behaving rudely against her which did not constitute an offence. However, in the case at hand, the father-in-law of the petitioner has alleged to have demanded Rs. three lacs in cash and so far as the mother-in-law is concerned, she has actively participated along with her son and daughter in physically assaulting the informant. Apart from the specific allegations which have been noted above, there are other general allegations made against the accused persons. 11. In such circumstances therefore, the complaint petition having specific allegations against each of the petitioners and in fact the investigation also against them having found the allegation to be true resulting in submission of charge-sheet and there being a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain these applications. 12. Accordingly, these applications are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points at the appropriate stage. 13. 12. Accordingly, these applications are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points at the appropriate stage. 13. Pending I.A. also stand disposed of. Applications disposed of.