JUDGMENT : 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C), petitioners seek quashing of Criminal Complaint titled "Ruby Khan Versus Mohd. Amin & Ors." filed under Sections 406/323/342/506/498-A RPC and order dated November 29, 2012 whereby the process has been issued by the learned Sub-Judge, Katra, against the petitioners on the basis of the statement of the complainant-respondent as also the statement of her husband recorded in support thereof. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Ruby Khan was married to Najamul Shah, son of Petitioner No.1 and brother of Petitioners No. 2 & 3 on April 15, 2011 as per the Muslim rites and rituals and after marriage petitioners started noticing/facing peculiar behavior of the respondent-Ruby Khan. It is stated that respondent-Ruby Khan came out to be a person of varied moods with violent anger. The rowdy and distinctive personality traits of respondent-Ruby Khan surprised the whole family of the Petitioners. The Petitioners despite best of their efforts were not able to ascertain the nature behavior of respondent-Ruby Khan. It is stated that the petitioners tried hard to keep the family organization subsisting and also tried to make the respondent understand the responsibility of the marriage and also of the family, yet the conditions kept on worsening. It is further stated that non harmonious functioning and the regular conflicts between petitioners and respondent-Ruby Khan, threatened the family organization resulting into family disruption. Ultimately the parents of the respondent-Ruby Khan along-with other five members on May 25, 2012 took the respondent/-Ruby Khan to Kalka Nagar, Kundrorian, Katra, District Reasi. It is stated that Najamul Shah, son of the petitioner No. 1, also went along with his wife-respondent-Ruby Khan and had taken away her whole jewelry, locked her room and started living with her parents at Kalka Nagar, Kundrorian, Katra, District Reasi. Thereafter the respondent-Ruby Khan took on rent a house situate at Residency Road, Jammu, and started living there with effect from July 20, 2012. The Petitioners, after the departure of respondent -Ruby Khan along-with her husband Najamul Shah, have never met them so far despite the fact that the respondent-Ruby Khan was blessed with twins on December 09, 2012, however, the Petitioners were shocked to know that the respondent-Ruby Khan took resort to filing of a Criminal Complaint titled "Ruby Khan Versus Mohd. The Petitioners, after the departure of respondent -Ruby Khan along-with her husband Najamul Shah, have never met them so far despite the fact that the respondent-Ruby Khan was blessed with twins on December 09, 2012, however, the Petitioners were shocked to know that the respondent-Ruby Khan took resort to filing of a Criminal Complaint titled "Ruby Khan Versus Mohd. Amin & Ors.", under Sections 406/323/342/505/498-A RPC and ultimately the process was issued by the leaned Sub-Judge, Katra, against the Petitioners on the basis of the statement of the respondent as also the statement of her husband recorded in support thereof vide Order dated November 29, 2012. 3. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid criminal complaint filed by the respondent-complainant against the petitioners and order dated 29.11.2012, petitioners challenge the same on the following grounds :- That the filing of the above said Criminal Complaint by the respondent whereby, the process has been issued by the learned Sub-Judge, Katra, against the petitioners on the basis of the statement of the complainant-respondent as also the statement of her husband recorded in support thereof, suffers from non-application of mind and is illegal, unjust and against the well-established principles as applicable for the exercise of jurisdiction vested in a Criminal Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt.1989; that from the bare perusal of the criminal complaint it is clearly established that the exaggerated version of alleged incident has been presented to falsely implicate, harass and humiliate the petitioners; that the leaned Sub-Judge, Katra, was not justified in issuing process against the petitioners on the basis of the statement of the complainant-respondent as also the statement of her husband; that the mere reiteration of the phraseology of the Penal Section in the statements may not furnish requisite material needed for recording satisfaction contemplated by law for issuance of process by the Magistrate. This is because issuance of process has the effect of taking away the freedom affecting the right to personal liberty of the person proceeded against; that the complainant-respondent and her witness have not spelt out requisite facts or circumstances demonstrating commission of any offences, so mere reproduction of the wording of the Penal Section by the complainant and her witness in their statements do not satisfy the requirements of Section 204 Cr.P.C and the process issued by the learned Sub Judge Katra on the respondent’s complaint cannot, therefore, be justified; that the learned Sub-Judge, Katra has further failed to appreciate that under criminal law the regard needs to be had to the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C. in terms whereof on taking cognizance on complaint, the Magistrate is required at once to examine the complainant and the witness present, if any, upon oath and thereafter to reduce to writing, the substance of the examination; that Section 200 Cr. P.C. mandates that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on Complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing. Failure to follow the mandate of law by the Magistrate renders the order taking cognizance and the issuance of process unwarranted and illegal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions relies upon the judgments of this Court reported in 2012 (1) JKJ 404 (HC) Ramesh Chander and Ors. Vs Sonika Gupta; and 2013 (3) JKJ 633 (HC) Ram Nath Sharma and Ors vs. Baljeet Sharma and Ors. 5. I have considered the contentions of counsel for petitioner, who has reiterated all grounds taken in petition. 6. From the perusal of complaint, I find that respondent has filed a complaint against her father-in-law and two brothers-in-law, before court below. The relevant paragraphs of complaint read under :- 1. That complainant was married to Najmul Shah as per Muslim rites at Ustad Mohalla, Jammu on 15th April, 2011. 2. That father of complainant gave sufficient dowry to the parents of her husband (i.e., 36 Tolas Gold, Furniture, T.V., Refrigerators, Silver Ornaments, Sofa Set Utensils etc.). 3. That immediately after the solemnization of marriage, the behaviour of accused person become worst and always demand for more and more dowry. 2. That father of complainant gave sufficient dowry to the parents of her husband (i.e., 36 Tolas Gold, Furniture, T.V., Refrigerators, Silver Ornaments, Sofa Set Utensils etc.). 3. That immediately after the solemnization of marriage, the behaviour of accused person become worst and always demand for more and more dowry. It is very important to mention here that on 26th September, 2012, accused wrongfully confined the complainant by peacefully locked up in the room and complainant was rescued with the help of her husband. 4. That complainant was subject to physical cruelty for many got many times an accused person demand more dowry and also mentally harass the complainant. It is very relevant to mention here that complainant tolerated the cruelty that good sense will prevail upon the accused. 5. That at the time of marriage accused has accused person gold the complainant that Najmul Shan is the owner of two shops, but on the contrary accused person has forcefully disposed the husband of complainant from the shops. 6. That due to the physical cruelty of the accused persons, the complainant is under the constant fear of injury by the accused. 7. That accused person has forcefully disposed the complainant and her husband from the house and presently complainant is residing with her parents at Katra and dowry items are under the custody of accused persons (i.e., Gold etc.). 8. That accused persons came to Katra on 28th November, 2012 for negotiation, but when they reached the house of complainant parents start beating complainant with stops and also threatened that they shall eliminate her if she takes any legal action against them. It is very important to mention here that complainant is pregnant lady with twins in her womb. 9. That complainant went to SHO P/S Katra for lodging FIR, but he plainly refused to do so as some of the offences are non-cognizable. That is why the present complainant. 10. That accused has committed offences u/s 323, 342, 506, 498-A, 406 RPC and also committed offence at Katra, therefore, Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try present complaint.” 7. Court below after recording the statements of complainant and her husband has issued process on 29.11.2012 u/s 406/323/342/506/498-A RPC. 8. That is why the present complainant. 10. That accused has committed offences u/s 323, 342, 506, 498-A, 406 RPC and also committed offence at Katra, therefore, Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try present complaint.” 7. Court below after recording the statements of complainant and her husband has issued process on 29.11.2012 u/s 406/323/342/506/498-A RPC. 8. Now law is settled that before approaching the Magistrate for filing criminal complaint, the complaint has to comply with the provisions of section 154 of Cr.P.C. It treads as under :- “154. Information in cognizable cases. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. 9. From bare perusal of section 154(1) Cr.P.C., it is evident that complainant has to file complaint before concerned I/C Police station, if he refuses then complainant has to approach concerned Superintendent of Police; if he also does not take any action then to Magistrate. Further along with complaint sufficient proof is required to be annexed in this regard. This is not mere formality, but mandatory provision. 10. In present case, although it has been mentioned that she approached the police, but no proof has been annexed. Further along with complaint sufficient proof is required to be annexed in this regard. This is not mere formality, but mandatory provision. 10. In present case, although it has been mentioned that she approached the police, but no proof has been annexed. Further, from bare perusal of contents of complaint, it is evident that there appears to be some property dispute of shops between husband of complainant and his father & brothers (accused persons). In complaint general types of allegation have been leveled, that behavior of accused became worst; they always demanded dowry; she was subject to cruelty; she was wrongfully confined on 26.9.2012; locked in room; on 28.11.2012 accused came for negotiation at Katra but they started beating with slaps and also threatened of her elimination. There is not even mention of entrustment of ‘Istridhan’ on accused; no injury certificate has been annexed; no facts of cruelty as mentioned in 498-A RPC have been mentioned in complaint. Exaggeration in facts has been made only to create an illusion of criminal act. It is not enough for complainant to record her statement and one witness, for setting criminal law in motion. Complainant is further required to place on record substantial material with regard to allegations leveled in complaint. 11. In present case, Complaint does not show any sufficient material of any offences for which JMIC has taken cognizance. Court below has taken cognizance of all offences mentioned in complaint without going through the materials as to whether all offences are made out or not. JMIC has in casual manner taken the cognizance; he was required to verify the allegations leveled in complaint, especially when there was no sufficient material in this regard. 12. In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed. Order of court below in taking cognizance and complaint are quashed.