JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. In both the cases common questions of law are involved that is why both the cases have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. In both the cases prayer has been made for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 08.06.2017 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1131 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Ranchi. 4. O.P. No.2 has filed complaint case alleging therein that she is legally wedded wife of accused Samir Kumar who is son of petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 2647 of 2018 and her marriage was solemnized on 07.07.2007 according to Hindu rituals. It is further alleged that after marriage the husband of the complainant including these petitioners started torturing the complaint for demand of dowry. The complainant gave birth of a female child. It is further alleged that the complainant went to live with her husband at different places i.e. Hyderabad, Nagpur, Banglore and Kulalumpur but her husband continued torture upon her due to non fulfilment of demand. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2647 of 2018 are father-in-law and mother-in-law and petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.2778 of 2018 is brother-in-law. He further submits that there are omnibus allegation against these petitioners. He further submits that the husband is not before this Court and entire allegations are against the husband inspite of that complaint case has been filed against the husband including these petitioners. He submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered with judgment in the case of “Geeta Mehrotra & Another V. State of U.P. & Another” reported in 2013 (1) JLJR 115 (SC) and in the case of “Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another” reported in [2013 (1) East Cr. C. 30 (SC)]. On these grounds, he submits that so far as petitioners are concerned, entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits there are allegations against the petitioners of demand of dowry and for committing torture upon the complainant/O.P. No.2. C. 30 (SC)]. On these grounds, he submits that so far as petitioners are concerned, entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits there are allegations against the petitioners of demand of dowry and for committing torture upon the complainant/O.P. No.2. He further submits that he has brought on record deposition of witnesses by way of counter-affidavit. He submits that all the witnesses supported the complicity of the petitioners. He submits that photographs have been annexed with the counter-affidavit which discloses injury sustained to the O.P. No.2. On these grounds, he submits that these petitions are fit to be dismissed. 7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the material on record and finds that in Solemn Affirmation of the O.P. No. 2 there is no direct allegation so far as father-in-law and brother-in-law are concerned. The allegation is against mother-in-law and husband and admittedly the petitioner brother-in-law who is residing at another place at the time of occurrence. The implication of the entire family members are the matter of concern so far as matrimonial cases are concerned. So far as father-in-law and brother-in-law are concerned, there is no allegation in the Solemn Affirmation. Relatives of the husband are being implicated which was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “K. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of Telenganna” reported in (2018)14 SCC 452 . In absence of specific role attributed so far as father-in-law and brother-in-law are concerned, it will be unjust to compel them to undergo in criminal trial. Moreover, case has been lodged after ten years of marriage. Accordingly, father-in-law namely, Bharat Lal Agarwal @ Bharat Lal Agrawal and brother-in-law Sandeep Kumar are concerned, entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 08.06.2017 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1131 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Ranchi, are hereby quashed. Rest of the cognizance order so far as other accused persons are concerned, shall remain intact. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the cognizance order so far as other accused persons are concerned and the trial court will proceed against them. 8. Both these petitions stand allowed and disposed of in above terms. Rest of the cognizance order so far as other accused persons are concerned, shall remain intact. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the cognizance order so far as other accused persons are concerned and the trial court will proceed against them. 8. Both these petitions stand allowed and disposed of in above terms. As these petitions stand disposed of, I.A. No. 11820 of 2019 filed for early hearing, also stands disposed of. Interim order dated 31.01.2019 (in Cr.M.P. No. 2778/2018) is vacated.