JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. In both the petitions common cognizance order and F.I.R. are subject matter that is why both the matters are being heard together with the consent of the parties. 3. Cr. M.P. No. 415 of 2019 has been filed for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 25.01.2018 in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 556 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 4. Cr. M.P. No. 97 of 2018 has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. including entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 556 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella 5. In Cr. M.P. No. 415 of 2019 petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are sister-in-law, petitioner no. 4 is husband of petitioner no. 3, petitioner no. 5 is husband of O.P. No. 2, petitioner no. 6 is father-in-law and petitioner no. 7 has no relation with O.P. No. 2. 6. In Cr. M.P. No. 97 of 2018 petitioner no. 1 is brother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 is sister of petitioner no. 1. 7. F.I.R. has been lodged by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that the marriage of the O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with one Amarjeet Kumar @ Alok Kumar of village Saidih, P.S. Gariyak District-Nalanda (Bihar) in the year 2013, according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage her mother had given Rs.3,49,000/- and ornaments, house hold articles worth Rs.4,00,000/- to her in laws as per presentation. It is further alleged that after marriage she went to her sasural where she was leading her conjugal life peacefully for about six months. It is further alleged that after six months of the marriage, the accused persons demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle and expenses for appointment in service of her husband and when the mother of the informant expressed her inability to fulfil their demand, all of them started torturing the informant by various ways physically and mentally. 8. Mr. It is further alleged that after six months of the marriage, the accused persons demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle and expenses for appointment in service of her husband and when the mother of the informant expressed her inability to fulfil their demand, all of them started torturing the informant by various ways physically and mentally. 8. Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case arises out of matrimonial dispute. He further submits that there are omnibus allegation against all the petitioners except her husband. He further submits that marriage took place at Aarah (Bihar) and the petitioners are resident of Nalanda (Bihar). He further submits that the case has been lodged against these petitioners at Seraikella (Jharkhand). According to him all the alleged occurrence took place either at Aarah or Nalanda but the case has been lodged at Seraikella which is not territorial jurisdiction for lodging the F.I.R. 9. Per contra, Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there are allegation of threatening and demand of dowry against all the accused persons. She submits that the learned court below has rightly taken cognizance by order dated 25.01.2018 10. Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order. 11. In the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. Looking into F.I.R., it transpires that there are only omnibus allegation against the petitioners except husband who is petitioner no. 5 in Cr. M.P. No. 415 of 2019. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners wherein it has been disclosed that husband of O.P. No. 2 has lodged F.I.R. against the brothers of the O.P. No. 2 for instigating the O.P. No. 2 to leave the matrimonial house. It appears that there are only omnibus allegation but the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. Even the person who was not residing with the family of the husband of O.P. No. 2, has been implicated in this case and the learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 25.01.2018. In the cases under section 498A I.P.C. how the entire family members are being implicated, was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. In the cases under section 498A I.P.C. how the entire family members are being implicated, was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 wherein para 21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: (SCC p. 698, para 12) “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts.” The view taken by the Judges in that matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” 12. How the cases of 498A I.P.C. are being filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues was the subject matter of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand” reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein para 32, it has been observed as under:- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. Vs. State of Jharkhand” reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein para 32, it has been observed as under:- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.” 13. Reverting back to the case in hand and looking into F.I.R., it transpires that there are only omnibus allegation and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners even the person who has no relation with the O.P. No.2 who is petitioner no. 7 in Cr. M.P. No. 415 of 2019. Petitioners of Cr. M.P. No. 97 of 2018 are residing at different places in spite of that cognizance has been taken against them. Looking into cognizance order, it transpires that the learned court below has not disclosed prima facie materials so far as petitioners are concerned and took cognizance under section 498A I.P.C. and under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. There is no doubt that for taking cognizance a detailed order is not required to be passed however, what are the materials against the accused persons, are required to be disclosed, which is lacking in the case in hand. 14. Accordingly, order taking cognizance dated 25.01.2018 passed in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 556 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella is set aside. 15. The matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass order afresh in accordance with law. 16. Both these petitions stand allowed and disposed of in above terms. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. 17. Interim order dated 14.03.2019 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 415 of 2019 is vacated.