JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 14, 1987, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 494 and 494/109 I.P.C. 2. Sunita Kumari, on December 6, 1985, filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, against Hakam Singh, Surjeet Kaur, Kamaljeet Kaur, Gurmej Singh, Manjeet Kaur, Jasveer Singh, Simrath Kaur, Raju and Jasveer Kaur for offence under Section 494/109 I.P.C. It was alleged in the complaint that she was married to Hakam Singh on October 10, 1980, as per their rites at Raisinghnagar. After three months of the marriage, accused Hakam Singh went to America and the accused No. 2. left for America earlier to the accused No. 1. The accused off and on used to demand money from her parents as the dowry. Even the amount of Rs. 15,000/- for purchase of tickets to America were demanded and taken from the parents of the complainant. The complainant was informed by the maternal uncle of accused No. 1 that the accused has contracted second marriage and the accused No. 2 to 9 have helped and participated in contracting the second marriage by Hakam Singh. It was, also, mentioned in the complaint that the first complaint was filed by the complainant on September 30, 1985 in which the complainant was examined under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code on October 1, 1985, but the first complaint was dismissed on December 2, 1985, for nonappearance of the complainant. It was, therefore, prayed that the accused, mentioned in the list, may adequately be punished. The learned Magistrate examined Sunita Kumari under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code and, also, recorded statement of Madan Lal, Jagjeet Singh and Ramesh Chandra under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code The learned Magistrate, thereafter, after considering the evidence on record took cognizance against all the accused, including the two petitioners. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that from the bare reading of the evidence on record, no case under Section 494/109 I.P.C. has been made-out against the petitioners. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that from the bare reading of the evidence on record, no case under Section 494/109 I.P.C. has been made-out against the petitioners. No part has been assigned to the petitioners to have abetted the commission of the offence. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there is no evidence on record which could prove the commission of the offence of second marriage. Even the second marriage has not been prima facie, proved from the evidence on record. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on : Mst. Gyan Kaur v. Manohar Singh 1970 R.L.W. 517. Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Shashibala, (1981 Cr.L.R. 290) 1983 RLR 364 , AIR 1979 SC 848 , Bhanwarlal v. Mst. Sarbati 1990 R.C.C. 52 AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1153 and 1979 S.C. 8. The learned Counsel for the non- petitioner, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 6. At the time of taking the cognizance, the Court has to apply its mind on the evidence of the witnesses and the suspected conditions of the offence to satisfy itself that a prima facie case is made-out to proceed-with against the accused. At this stage, the evidence is not to be meticulously examined as required to be examined at the final stage. If there is a prima facie evidence to proceed-with then the Court can take cognizance to proceed-with the matter. If the accused against whom the cognizance has been taken has any valid defence available to him then he can against that point before the trial Court and the trial Court will decide his objections, if so raised, at the appropriate stage. But the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be lightly used in quashing the proceeding when a prima facie case has been made-out against the petitioner. But the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be lightly used in quashing the proceeding when a prima facie case has been made-out against the petitioner. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of : The State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal Judgments Today 1990 (4) 650) : "We also give a notice of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers does not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. 7. In his view of the matter, I am of the opinion that if the petitioner has any valid defence available to him, including the point mentioned above, the petitioner can raise all these objections before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court will decide all these objections at the appropriate time, if so raised. 8. It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners are residing in Delhi and there is no direct involvement of the petitioners in the crime and even the service of summons on the such complainant has not been completed and they have to go off and on to Raisingh nagar to attend the Court and, therefore, this Court may, in its inherent jurisdiction, grant the exemption from personal appearance of the petitioners during the trial. 9. In this connection, it will not be proper to pass any order by this Court at this tatge without any application for exemption from personal attendance. 9. In this connection, it will not be proper to pass any order by this Court at this tatge without any application for exemption from personal attendance. But, however, if any application is moved by the petitioner before the learned trial Court then the learned trial Court will consider the application for their personal exemption from attendance in accordance with law and if the presence of the accused in the Court is not necessary for their being identificates and there are no chances of their absconding and the absence of the accused-petitioners from the Court is not likely to prejudice the case of the complainant, then the learned trial Court will liberally exercise its discretion in granting the exemption from personal attendance. 10. With these observations, this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioners, has got no force and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******