JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C against the judgment dated 10th March, 1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa passed in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 1985 thereby confirming the order dated 10th June, 1985 passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bandikui passed in criminal case No. 281 of 1984. 2. The principal point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court at Bandikui has got no jurisdiction because none of the allegations relating to any incident which happened at Bandi Kui. It was argued that the incident happened at Ajmer and not at Bandikui as proved by the letters written by Manju or others. The submission of the learned counsel is that if entire record is scrutinised, it would be obvious that nothing happened at Bandikui and the complainant wants to drag the accused at Bandikui for harassing them. The learned counsel has taken me through the letters in order to convince that if the entire facts are assessed and appreciated his contention would stand substantiated. 3. Mr. Dhankar on the contrary submits that at this stage when the question of jurisdiction is being decided this court cannot go into the evidence which is likely to be produced. But it should scrutinise the allegations as made so far. He referred to para 4, 5, 7 of the complaint. 4. Obviously in these paragraphs the allegation of some incident on account of offence under section 488 A IPC is alleged to have taken place at Bandikui. 5. It may be that on close examining and recording of evidence, these allegations may be disproved or not proved. 6. In this view of the matter I cannot interfere at this stage because the allegations are undisputedly there and evidence would be required for appreciation. 7. However I find that the petitioners Nos. 4, 5, and 6 Kumari Surendra Mohan Chopra, Smt. Sushma wife of Dharamver Kapur and Smt. Bala @ Brijbala wife of Bhupendra Singh have been superflously added in the complaint and there is no prima facie case against them. Consequently, while maintaining the order of cognizance against petitioners Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the taking of cognizance against petitioners Nos. 4, 5, and 6 Kumari Surendra Mohan Chopra. Smt. Sushma and Smt. Bala @ Brijbala are quashed. 8. Consequently, while maintaining the order of cognizance against petitioners Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the taking of cognizance against petitioners Nos. 4, 5, and 6 Kumari Surendra Mohan Chopra. Smt. Sushma and Smt. Bala @ Brijbala are quashed. 8. The criminal miscellaneous application is decided as indicated above. It is further ordered that Smt. Sushila Rani wife of Sikandarlal would not be compelled to appear before the Magistrate and she is granted exemption from attendance. The learned counsel for Smt. Sushila Rani would submit necessary undertaking for her attendance if called upon latter on at the time of judgment.Petition dismissed. *******