JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.3 –Sanjay Kumar Singh has died and files a photocopy of the death certificate of the petitioner no.3. 3. Let the photocopy of the death certificate of the petitioner no.3 - Sanjay Kumar Singh be kept in the record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners does not press this criminal miscellaneous petition so far as the petitioner no.3 - Sanjay Kumar Singh is concerned. 5. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not pressed; so far as the petitioner no.3 - Sanjay Kumar Singh is concerned. 6. So far as the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 are concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 that 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 G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020 including the order dated 01.09.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in the said G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 7. The allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 is that the petitioner no.1 being the sister-in-law (Nanad) and the petitioner no.2 being the mother-in-law of the informant –Madhuri Singh treated her with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry, being not satisfied with the dowry of Rs.9,00,000/- and as per the instruction of the husband of the informant, an amount of another Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the friend of the husband of the informant namely Rajesh Kumar Singh and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the another friend of the husband of the informant namely Pravin Kumar and further an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was transferred to the bank account of brother-in-law (Devar) of the informant namely Raj Roshan Bhadoria and a cash of Rs.1,51,000/- was handed over to the husband of the informant and the said amount of dowry demand was met due to pressure and demand made. Besides the cash amounts, jewelries and other consumer durable items and furniture as well as utensils were given. After the marriage, the informant went to her in-laws house immediately. After the marriage of the informant, inter-alia, the petitioner no.2 and the petitioner no.1 along with other relatives of the husband of the informant ill-treated the informant, assaulted her, tortured her mentally and physically and treated her as a servant instead of a newly married bride. The petitioners used to assault the informant with hand as well as by throwing slippers at her and at the instance of the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant namely Nisha Singh, the petitioners and others were calling the informant a lame person and were coercing the informant to bring a vehicle from her father. The petitioners did not give food to the informant even for a couple of days; on several occasions. The father of the informant inter-alia upon the pressure from the petitioner no.1 after his retirement took loan from the bank and purchased one Maruti Wagon R VXI Car and gave it to the husband of the informant and only after that the husband of the informant came to Ranchi and took the informant and the new vehicle to the in-laws house of the informant. Thereafter, the informant became pregnant and was unable to do the household works and inter-alia, the petitioner no.2 sent the informant to her paternal house at Ranchi and told that the informant must deliver a son or else she should die at Ranchi. The informant was blessed with a son on 21.06.2019 but no one came from her matrimonial house and all the expenses were met by the retired father of the informant. On 18.12.2020, the informant went to meet the petitioner no.1 at her house situated at Bokaro and as the informant disclosed the commission of unnatural offences committed upon her by her husband, the petitioner no.1 became violent and assaulted the informant and snatched away the mobile phone of the informant in which the video recording of ill treatment of the husband of the informant was recorded and dropped the informant at her paternal house after telling not to disclose the occurrence that took place in the house of the petitioner no.1 to anybody. 8. 8. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Jagarnathpur P.S. Cae No. 441 of 2020 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 498A/307/ 377/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, vide order dated 01.09.2021 has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 , wherein in the facts of that case when there was no allegation against the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India except casual reference of their names, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that when the without the allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case, overlooking the facts born out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in domestic quarrel. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 , wherein in the facts of that case where there were no specific allegation against both the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial and quashed the complaint against the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Ors. Vs. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Ors. Vs. Monica reported in (2009) 10 SCC 604 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the essential ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and observed as under in para -29 which reads as under:- “29. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 498-A are: 1. A woman must be married. 2. She must be subjected to cruelty. 3. Cruelty must be of the nature of: (i) any wilful conduct as was likely to drive such woman: a. to commit suicide; b. cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, either mental or physical; (ii) harassment of such woman, (1) with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security, (2) or on account of failure of such woman or by any of her relation to meet the unlawful demand; (iii) woman was subjected to such cruelty by: (1) husband of that woman, or(2) any relative of the husband.” And submits that as in the facts of that case, there was allegation that the appellant no.2 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India kicked the respondent with her leg and told her that her mother to be a liar may make out some offence but not the one punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the allegation that the appellant no.2 poisoned the ears of her son against the respondent or that she gave two used lady suits of her daughter to the complainant in that case and has been given perpetual sermons to the complainant could not be said to be the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 281 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work till Legislature find out ways, how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. 12. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 12. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and this F.I.R. is a counter blast to Matrimonial Case No. 106 of 2020 filed by the husband of the informant in Family Court, Banka and no specific role of the petitioners has been mentioned in the order dated 01.09.2021 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after submission of the charge sheet. It is then submitted that the filing of the F.I.R. is only an act done to harass the relatives of the father of the husband of the informant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 that no offence is made out against the petitioner nos. 1 & 2. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020 including the order dated 01.09.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in the said G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, be quashed and set aside. 13. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020 including the order dated 01.09.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in the said G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020. It is submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that as charge sheet has already been submitted against the petitioners and after investigation of the case police found the allegations to be true and sent them up for trial, the petitioners if they so like can agitate their grievance that there is no sufficient materials to frame charges against them before the trial court. It is next submitted that the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide the said Matrimonial Case No. 106 of 2020 has been dismissed by the Family Court Banka vide order dated 26.09.2023 for continued non-appearance of the petitioner before the Family Court, Banka and as his lawyer also did not appear before the Family Court, Banka. 14. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, then upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Manik B. vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that whether the testimony of the witness is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the witness box at the stage of such trial and such an exercise is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and submits that at this stage, this court cannot question the veracity of allegations made against the petitioners, the informant and other witnesses. 15. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, reported in AIR 2019 SC 2499 , para -22 and 37 of which, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as under:- “22. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report, 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. 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) Cr.P.C., 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. 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) Cr.P.C., 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 subjective 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 on file. In the present case, cognizance of the offence has been taken by taking into consideration the charge sheet filed by the police for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC, the order for issuance of process without explicitly recording reasons for its satisfaction for issue of process does not suffer from any illegality. 37. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an exfacie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. [Vide Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2012) 11 SCC 465 :” (emphasis supplied) And submits that as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in case of taking cognizance of an offence based on police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process and in this case also the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence based on the police report, hence the order dated 01.09.2021 cannot be found fault with on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not recorded the reasons for issuing the process. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 16. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that undisputedly charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Iqbal alias Bala and others v. State of U.P.and others, reported in (2023) 8 SCC 734 , para -7 of which reads as under:- “7. It is relevant to note that the victim has not furnished any information in regard to the date and time of the commission of the alleged offence. At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, yet we are of the view that the appellants should prefer discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and charge-sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. of the alleged offences, yet we are of the view that the appellants should prefer discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and charge-sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected forming part of the charge-sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any case for discharge is made out or not.” (Emphasis supplied) Has opined that when the charge sheet is submitted, the trial court be asked to take a call on the merits of the case instead of quashing the entire criminal proceeding. 17. Now coming to the facts of the case, besides the general and omnibus allegation, there are specific allegation also against the petitioner nos. 1 & 2. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the facts of this case are totally different from the facts of Geeta Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), Preeti Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Ors. Vs. Monica (supra) and Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (supra) as in this case, there is specific allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 also. 18. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceeding not on the ground of any legal bar or under any law, the petitioners are not liable but on the ground of inadequacy of material in the record to implicate the petitioners in this case. Undisputedly after investigation of the case police or material against the petitioners for implicating them in the alleged offence and has already submitted charge sheet against them. 19. Undisputedly after investigation of the case police or material against the petitioners for implicating them in the alleged offence and has already submitted charge sheet against them. 19. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020 including the order dated 01.09.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in the said G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, be quashed and set aside rather the trial court be asked to take a call at the time of considering framing of charge regarding contention of the petitioners that there is insufficient material in record to frame charge against the petitioners. 20. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 21. Consequently, the interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated. 22. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.