JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. N.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance date 19.02.2015 passed in connection with C-1 (CP) Case No. 329 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Bokaro. 3. The O.P. No. 2 has filed complaint case stating therein that the she was married with accused Vishal Sahu @ Pinu according to Hindu rites and customs on 16.06.2014. After her marriage, she went to her sasural. It is further alleged that after one week of the marriage, the accused persons started demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- as dowry and for non-fulfillment of the said demand, the accused persons started torturing the O.P. No. 2 and also given threating to marry with another lady. It is further alleged that the family members of the O.P. No. 2 tried to pacify the matter but it went in-vain and lastly the O.P. No. 2 was driven out from her matrimonial house. 4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order including entire criminal proceeding on the ground that identity of the petitioner has not been disclosed in the complaint petition and even the name of husband of petitioner has not been disclosed and it has been stated that the name of the husband of the petitioner is not known. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the accused persons. He further submits that cognizance has not been taken against the father-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 however, cognizance has been taken against this petitioner. 5. Mr. N.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that although the name of husband of the petitioner has not been disclosed however, this is subject matter of trial. 6. On perusal of complaint petition, it transpires that there is general and omnibus allegation against the accused persons and what is the role of the petitioner, has not been disclosed even the name of husband of petitioner has not been disclosed in the complaint petition. Cognizance has not been taken against the father-in-law of O.P. No. 2. What are the materials against the petitioner has not been disclosed in cognizance order. Cognizance has not been taken against the father-in-law of O.P. No. 2. What are the materials against the petitioner has not been disclosed in cognizance order. It is well settled that after taking cognizance, a detailed order is not required to be passed however, prima facie materials are required to be disclosed in the cognizance order, which is lacking in the case in hand. In the case of “Pepsi Food Limited and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others, reported in (1998) (5) SCC 749” the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-28 has observed as follows:- “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any f the accused.” 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, order taking cognizance date 19.02.2015 passed in connection with C-1 (CP) Case No. 329 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Bokaro, is quashed, so far as petitioner is concerned. 8 The matter is remitted back to the court concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 9. This petition is disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.