JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.1991, whereby, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 500, 506 and 507 Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner is elder brother of the complainant. The respondent has filed a complaint in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, alleging therein that his wife is serving as Accountant in the Department of Tourism, Govt. of Rajasthan and accused petitioner is serving as Lecturer in the University of Rajasthan. It is further alleged that on 1.12.90, a printing card was received by his wife Savita wherein dirty language was used for his wife. The matter was brought to the notice of the members of his family that by this card, the petitioner and his wife have been insulted and defamed and the accused petitioner has also sent similar letters on various occasions to his wife Savita. Therefore, the accused petitioner has committed the offence under Sections 500, 506 and 507 Indian Penal Code. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code Those obscene photos and dirty remarks written on photos were also placed on record. The matter was investigated and on the basis of material placed on record, the learned Trial Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 500, 506 and 507 Indian Penal Code. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.91, the petitioner has riled this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the order dated 14.11.91 whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dangi submitted that the petitioner is a respectable person in the society. The complainant has no reputation in the society. He has been convicted even by the Court. He has deceived daughter of his maternal uncle. The father and mother of the complainant has given the affidavit in favour of the petitioner. 5. Assuming the allegations levelled by the Counsel for the petitioner against the complainant are true but that does not give right to any person to commit any offence against such person. At the stage of taking cognizance, we cannot expect from the prosecution side that they should prove all the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. 6. 5. Assuming the allegations levelled by the Counsel for the petitioner against the complainant are true but that does not give right to any person to commit any offence against such person. At the stage of taking cognizance, we cannot expect from the prosecution side that they should prove all the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Their Lordships had an occasion to consider the issue when a cognizance should be taken and they dealt with the issue in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh ( 1978 (1) SCR 257 ) . In that case, their Lordships observed at page 259 as under: "At the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." 7. Considering the obscene photos and the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also the opinion of the hand writing expert vide Ann. 8, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned order specially I have no compelling reason to quash that order at this stage. Considering the obscene photos and the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also the opinion of the hand writing expert vide Ann. 8, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned order specially I have no compelling reason to quash that order at this stage. The objections, so raised, can be taken while framing the charge against the petitioner.In the result, the petition/application is dismissed.Application dismissed. *******