Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1332 (JHR)

Samim @ Shamim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2023-11-08

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chas Mahila P.S. Case No.18 of 2021 (S), corresponding to G.R. No.528 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2021 whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has issued summons to the petitioners. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners being the relatives of the husband of the informant treated the informant with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry. There is specific allegation against the petitioners of perpetrating physical and mental cruelty upon the informant and there is also allegation that they were repeatedly and continuously assaulting the informant to fulfill the demand of dowry. There is specific allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 of outraging the modesty of the informant and using criminal force to disrobe her. Further there is allegation that the petitioners have driven the victim out of the matrimonial house for her failure to fulfill demand of dowry of the petitioners. There are several specific instances, the dates of four different instances has been narrated in the First Information Report regarding the cruelty being perpetrated upon the informant by the petitioners. 4. The police after investigation of the case did not send up the petitioners for trial and submitted final form mentioning therein that upon secret and indirect investigation, the police did not file any material showing the involvement of the petitioners in the case. Hence, police did not send up the petitioners for trial because of lack of evidence against them. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro differed from the final form submitted by police and on the basis of the contents in the FIR and the supplementary case diary found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. As the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro vide order dated 20.11.2021 had already taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code; hence vide order dated 17.05.2022, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro observed that the cognizance order dated 20.11.2021 be read in respect of the petitioners also. 6. As the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro vide order dated 20.11.2021 had already taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code; hence vide order dated 17.05.2022, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro observed that the cognizance order dated 20.11.2021 be read in respect of the petitioners also. 6. The trial has already been started against the husband of the informant in which one witness namely Imamuddin Ansari has been examined as P.W.1 and the said Imamuddin Ansari has supported the case of the prosecution and has categorically stated that P.W.1 went to the matrimonial house of the victim; on hearing hue and cry, he entered into the house and saw five accused persons including the four petitioners of this criminal miscellaneous petition; on 02.05.2021 at 09:00 am were abusing the informant and assaulted her and the petitioner nos.1 and 3 were trying to outrage the modesty of the informant by tearing her salwar. He has also stated that on 25.04.2021 on the pretext of compromise and settlement meeting, the five accused persons of the case including the four petitioners were abusing and assaulting the informant and were torturing her mentally and physically. He has stated that he knows all the accused persons of the case including the four petitioners of this criminal miscellaneous petition who were not present in the court on the date of his examination is a witness. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind and without any cogent reason, vide the said order dated 17.05.2022 has ordered that the cognizance taken by it vide order dated 20.11.2021 be read against the petitioners as well. It further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that continuity of the said order will amount to abuse of process of law. 8. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , paragraph no.18 of which reads as under:- “18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , paragraph no.18 of which reads as under:- “18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that in this case also the allegation leveled against the petitioners is insufficient to constitute any offence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157 , the paragraph 17 and 21 of which reads as under: “17. Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.” “21. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.” “21. Bearing in mind the above legal position, we are convinced that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the aforestated ground. In our opinion, in order to arrive at a conclusion, whether or not the appellant had made out a case for quashing of the charge-sheet against him, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the material which was placed before the Magistrate. For dismissal of the petition, the High Court had to record a finding that the uncontroverted allegations, as made, establish a prima facie case against the appellant. In our judgment, the decision of the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it is not permissible for it to look into the materials placed before the Magistrate is not in consonance with the broad parameters, enumerated in a series of decisions of this Court and briefly noted above, to be applied while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Code for discharge and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that for dismissal of the petition, the High Court had to record a finding that the uncontroverted allegations, as made, establish a prima facie case against the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar vs. C.B.I. Delhi & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 847 , paragraph no.19 and 22 of which reads as under:- 19. At this stage the Magistrate is required to exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the facts and materials before him. In doing so, the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the Investigating Officer and he is competent to exercise his discretion irrespective of the views expressed by the Police in its report and may prima facie find out whether an offence has been made out or not. 22. The principles relating to taking of cognizance in a criminal matter has been very lucidly explained by this Court in S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 492 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1213 ), the relevant observations are setout: "19. The expression "cognizance" has not been defined in the Code. 22. The principles relating to taking of cognizance in a criminal matter has been very lucidly explained by this Court in S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 492 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1213 ), the relevant observations are setout: "19. The expression "cognizance" has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means "become aware of" and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes" to take notice of judicially". It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone." (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have passed an order which would show that it has applied its mind. 11. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mehmood Ul Rehman vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & Ors. reported in (2015) 12 SCC 420 , paragraph no.20 of which reads as under:- “20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter.” 12. Hence, it is submitted that entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chas Mahila P.S. Case No.18 of 2021 (S), corresponding to G.R. No.528 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2021 be quashed and set aside. 13. Hence, it is submitted that entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chas Mahila P.S. Case No.18 of 2021 (S), corresponding to G.R. No.528 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2021 be quashed and set aside. 13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chas Mahila P.S. Case No.18 of 2021 (S), corresponding to G.R. No.528 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2021. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Another reported in (1989) 2 SCC 132 , paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under:- “13. From the provisions referred to above, it may be seen that on receipt of a complaint a Magistrate has several courses open to him. The Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence at once and proceed to record statements of the complaints and the witnesses present under Section 200. After recording those statements, if in the opinion of the Magistrate there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint under Section 203. On the other hand if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding he may issue process under Section 204. If, however, the Magistrate thinks fit, he may postpone the issue of process and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by the police officer or such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. He may then issue process if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding or dismiss the complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. Yet another course open to the Magistrate is that instead of taking cognizance of the offence and following the procedure laid down under Section 200 or Section 202, he may order an investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3). When such an order is made, the police will have to investigate the matter and submit a report under Section 173(2). On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) and issue process straightway to the accused. When such an order is made, the police will have to investigate the matter and submit a report under Section 173(2). On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) and issue process straightway to the accused. The Magistrate may exercise his powers in this behalf irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report whether an offence has been made out or not. This is because the police report under Section 173(2) will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police as well as the conclusion drawn by the police therefrom. If the Magistrate is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police there is sufficient material for him to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the Magistrate may do so without reference to the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer because the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police officer as to whether an offence has been made out or not. Alternately the Magistrate, on receiving the police report, may without issuing process or dropping the proceeding proceed to act under Section 200 by taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the statement upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present and thereafter decide whether the complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.” It is submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that on receiving the police report, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 191 (b) and issue process straightway to the accused and the Magistrate may exercise its power in this behalf irrespective of the view expressed by police in their report whether any offence has been made out or not. 14. Learned Spl. P.P. next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SWIL Ltd. v. State of Delhi and another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 670 , paragraph nos.6 and 7 of which reads as under:- “6. In our view, from the facts stated above, it is clear that at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence, provisions of Section 190 CrPC would be applicable. Section 190 inter alia provides that “the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon a police report of such facts which constitute an offence”. In our view, from the facts stated above, it is clear that at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence, provisions of Section 190 CrPC would be applicable. Section 190 inter alia provides that “the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon a police report of such facts which constitute an offence”. As per this provision, the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and not the offender. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate under Section 204 CrPC is empowered to issue process to the accused. At the stage of issuing process, it is for the Magistrate to decide whether process should be issued against particular person/persons named in the charge-sheet and also not named therein. For that purpose, he is required to consider the FIR and the statements recorded by the police officer and other documents tendered along with charge-sheet. Further, upon receipt of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, the Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused by ignoring the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently applying his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation by taking into account the statement of the witnesses examined by the police. At this stage, there is no question of application of Section 319 CrPC. Similar contention was negatived by this Court in Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1967 SC 1167 : 1967 Cri LJ 1081 : (1967) 2 SCR 423 ] by holding thus: (AIR p. 1169, para 9) “In our opinion, once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence.” 7. Further, in the present case, there is no question of referring to the provisions of Section 319 CrPC. That provision would come into operation in the course of any enquiry into or trial of an offence. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence.” 7. Further, in the present case, there is no question of referring to the provisions of Section 319 CrPC. That provision would come into operation in the course of any enquiry into or trial of an offence. In the present case, neither the Magistrate was holding enquiry as contemplated under Section 2(g) CrPC nor had the trial started. He was exercising his jurisdiction under Section 190 of taking cognizance of an offence and issuing process. There is no bar under Section 190 CrPC that once the process is issued against some accused, on the next date, the Magistrate cannot issue process to some other person against whom there is some material on record, but his name is not included as accused in the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that upon receipt of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 191 (b) even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused by ignoring the conclusion arrived at by the I.O. and independently applying its mind to the facts emerging from the investigation by taking into account the statement of witnesses examined by the police. 15. Learned Spl. P.P. next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar Versus State of Karnataka reported in 2021 SCCOnLine SC 1140, paragraph no.87, 101 (viii) of which reads as under:- “87. The Special Judge, it must be noted, took cognizance on the basis of a report submitted under Section 173 CrPC and not on the basis of a private complaint. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (supra). The Special Judge took note of the FIR, the witness statements, and connected documents before taking cognizance of the offence. In this backdrop, it would be far-fetched to fault the order of the Special Judge on the ground that it does not adduce detailed reasons for taking cognizance or that it does not indicate that an application of mind. In the facts of this case, therefore, the order taking cognizance is not erroneous. C.6 ‘Authorised person’ and Section 22 of MMDR Act 101. In the facts of this case, therefore, the order taking cognizance is not erroneous. C.6 ‘Authorised person’ and Section 22 of MMDR Act 101. In view of the discussion above, we summarise our findings below: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (viii) Since cognizance was taken by the Special Judge based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind to the material; Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx” (emphasis supplied) and submits that since the learned Magistrate took cognizance based on police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue a fully reasoned order if otherwise it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has applied its mind to the materials in the record. 16. Learned Spl. P.P. next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhushan Kumar and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 424 , paragraph no.13 and 19 of which reads as under: “13. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued. 19. This being the settled legal position, the order passed by the Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the ground that the summoning order was not a reasoned order.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate would not be faulted on the ground that summoning order was not a reasoned order. 17. Learned Spl. P.P. next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of W.B. and Another v. Mohd. Khalida and Others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 684 , paragraph no.43 of which reads as under:- “43. 17. Learned Spl. P.P. next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of W.B. and Another v. Mohd. Khalida and Others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 684 , paragraph no.43 of which reads as under:- “43. Similarly, when Section 20-A(2) of TADA makes sanction necessary for taking cognizance — it is only to prevent abuse of power by authorities concerned. It requires to be noted that this provision of Section 20-A came to be inserted by Act 43 of 1993. Then, the question is as to the meaning of taking cognizance. Section 190 of the Code talks of cognizance of offences by Magistrates. This expression has not been defined in the Code. In its broad and literal sense, it means taking notice of an offence. This would include the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings or for other purposes. The word ‘cognizance’ indicates the point when a Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice of an offence. It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons.” and submits that the expression cognizance of offences has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and it means taking notice of an offence. This would include the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence. 18. Mr. Vashistha, the learned Spl. P.P. lastly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 , paragraph no.23 of which reads as under:- 23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file. 21. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter. and submits that there is difference in the role of Magistrate in respect of taking cognizance of an offence based on police report and based on complaint. 19. It is next submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. that when the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence based on police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the said process. Hence, it is submitted that as there is undisputedly enough material in the record including the statement of Imamuddin Ansari who is an eyewitness to the occurrence of at least two different dates of cruelty being perpetrated upon the victim being 09:00 pm of 02.05.2021 and 12:00 noon of 25.04.2021; hence, there is no illegality in the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. It is lastly submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 20. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the only ground upon which the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is challenged is that the same has been passed mechanically in a routine manner without applying judicial mind in the absence of evidence in the final form submitted by the investigating agency. It is a settled principle of law that a Magistrate is not required to record reasons at the stage of issue of summons to the accused if the same is done on the basis of the police report is as been laid down by the Apex Court interalia in the cases of State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (supra) and Bhushan Kumar and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another (supra) as well as Pradeep S. Wodeyar Versus State of Karnataka (supra). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have done well to take the pains of discussing the materials in the record like the occurrence of four different dates which specifically has been mentioned in the FIR that the informant victim was treated with cruelty and could have well discussed the materials in the record as has come in the case diary and the supplementary case diary including the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witness namely Imamuddin Ansari who is also being examined as P.W.1 in the trial of the husband of the informant and has supported the case of the prosecution being eyewitness to two different occurrences, the first occurrence is of 09:00 pm of 02.05.2021 and the second occurrence is of 12:00 noon of 25.04.2021 but instead the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has just mentioned that on the basis of the FIR and the supplementary case diary, it found sufficient materials to constitute prima facie against the petitioners. Hence, the cognizance order dated 17.05.2022 be read in respect of the petitioners as well. 21. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as there is ample materials in the record which if left uncontroverted will constitute prima facie the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to quash the order dated 20.11.2021 or for that matter the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chas Mahila P.S. Case No.18 of 2021 (S), corresponding to G.R. No.528 of 2022 at this nascent stage merely because the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not passed a detailed reasoned order though otherwise, it appears that it has applied its independent mind, hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 22. In view of dismissal of this criminal miscellaneous petition; the interim order granted earlier in this case is vacated.