JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. On the request of Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, who is appearing for the petitioners, the argument has been heard through Video Conferencing and there is no technical glitch and the argument of Mr. Shikarwar has also been heard by Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2016 in connection with Complaint Case No. 919 of 2015, pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Koderma. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that petitioner no. 1 is the elder son of the complainant and he stays with his family separately. The petitioner no. 1 has not fulfilled his duty of a son and has not taken care of his mother after death of his father and has instead always harassed the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant presently stays with her younger son at Tillaiya and petitioner no. 1 has repeatedly tried to grab the property of complainant by harassing the complainant and his younger son in some or the other way. It was also alleged that the petitioner has got the complainant's younger son implicated in a false criminal case and the petitioner no. 1 had assured the complainant to give money in return of sale deed of complainant's house. The complainant was disturbed due to the arrest of her younger son and, hence, transferred property in favour of petitioner no. 1 in need of money. It was further alleged that on 06.08.2015, the petitioner along with the accused Shyam Gope and other unknown person came and threatened the younger son of the complainant to vacate the house and started assaulting him. All the accused person also misbehaved and physically handled the mentally challenged grand daughter of the complainant. It was also alleged that petitioner no. 2 forcefully took Rs. 3,500/- from drawer of the counter and petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 forcefully placed his own lock on the main door of the complainant's shop. The people who had come along with petitioner no. 1 looked like criminals and one of them even carried a country made fire arm. All the accused person threatened the complainant and her family to vacate the house and shop. 4. 1, 2 and 3 forcefully placed his own lock on the main door of the complainant's shop. The people who had come along with petitioner no. 1 looked like criminals and one of them even carried a country made fire arm. All the accused person threatened the complainant and her family to vacate the house and shop. 4. Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is step son of the complainant and rest of the petitioners are wife and sons of the petitioner no. 1. He further submits that since a monetary dispute exists between Lakhan Lal Prajapati and Gatendra Katariya, who happen to be the own son of the complainant, the case was instituted being Complaint Case No. 11 of 2014, in which, Gatendra Katariya was taken into custody. Subsequently, on the request of the complainant an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid to the complainant and in view of which a portion of her house was given to the petitioner no. 3 vide registered sale deed dated 30.07.2016. He further submit that after release of Gatendra Katariya from the custody the petitioners had gone to take possession of the property in question, but the same was refused by the complainant and his son which led the petitioners to make a complaint before Police Station on 06.10.2015. He also submits that subsequently on 07.10.2015, a complaint case has been instituted against the petitioners and the same is a malicious prosecution as the complainant does not want to give possession of the property for which a sale deed was earlier executed in favour of the petitioner no. 3. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submits that the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners looking into solemn affirmation as well as enquiry witnesses and in view of that, cognizance order is a well reasoned order. He further submits that there are allegations of assaulting and snatching the money and in view of that, the case is made out. 6. Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Court has rightly taken cognizance. 7. The Court has perused the complaint case and finds that there are allegations against the petitioners of harassing the complainant. 6. Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Court has rightly taken cognizance. 7. The Court has perused the complaint case and finds that there are allegations against the petitioners of harassing the complainant. The allegations are there against accused no. 2 of snatching sum of Rs. 3,500/- from drawer of the counter. Further, there are allegations against accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 of breaking the lock of the shop in question. The complainant was also threatened to vacate the house and shop. In view of these facts, it appears that there are allegations against the petitioners. The learned Court, looking into the solemn affirmation as well as enquiry witnesses, has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners. 8. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted with regard to sale deed, nobody is authorised to assault and take rule of law in his hand. The case is made out against the petitioners. 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. 10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 11. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.