JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, who appeared suo motu on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 24.06.2022 passed in C.P. Case No.100/2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro. 3. The complaint case has been filed by opposite party no.2 against her husband i.e. the petitioner and her in-laws alleging therein that after her marriage with the petitioner, she went to her matrimonial home where she stayed happily for 2 to 3 months and afterward cruelty creeps in where accused started demanding Rs.5 Lakhs as dowry. The complainant wanted to get admitted in college and pursue her education, but her husband refused and assaulted the complainant. On 22.08.2021, accused persons ousted her from the house and on 14.01.2022 at about 09:00 P.M., all accused came to complainant's house and abused the complainant and her parents. It has been stated that earlier complainant was also filed case where accused were released on bail as the case was compromised and accused undertook that he will let complainant to pursue her education. 4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier Mahila P.S. Case No.10/2021 was filed by the complainant on 18.02.2021 and subsequently the present case being C.P. Case No.100/2022 has been filed on 22.01.2022. He further submits that the petitioner is the husband and maliciously the case has been filed against the petitioner. He also submits that in Mahila P.S. Case No.10/2021, the complainant was also examined. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut has appeared suo motu on behalf of opposite party no.2 and he submits that earlier Mahila P.S. Case No.10/2021 was filed by the complainant on 18.02.2021 and on 20.02.2021, opposite party no.2 filed Original Maintenance Case No.61 of 2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the petitioner. On 26.06.2021, the petitioner was granted bail in City Mahila P.S. Case No.10/2021 based on the compromise between the parties, however opposite party no.2 was ousted by the petitioner after getting bail and thereafter the complaint case being C.P. Case No.100/2022 has been filed by the complainant against the petitioner on the new facts of case. On 26.06.2021, the petitioner was granted bail in City Mahila P.S. Case No.10/2021 based on the compromise between the parties, however opposite party no.2 was ousted by the petitioner after getting bail and thereafter the complaint case being C.P. Case No.100/2022 has been filed by the complainant against the petitioner on the new facts of case. He further submits that opposite party no.2 has filed Cr.M.P. No.1218 of 2022 in which notice has been issued, which is the subject matter of cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. 6. In view of the above facts and submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that the petitioner was granted bail on 26.06.2021 on the basis of compromise between the parties and thereafter he ousted opposite party no.2 from the house after taking bail in City Mahila P.S. Case No.10/2021 and subsequently the present complaint case being C.P. Case No.100/2022 has been filed alleging all these facts. The petitioner has filed Complaint Case No.600 of 2022 against family members of opposite party no.2 under SC/ST Act. Thus, there are allegations against the petitioner. The learned court has taken cognizance by passing a reasoned order after looking into the complaint and enquiry witnesses. There is no illegality in the cognizance order. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.