JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 19.12.1996, whereby, cognizance for the offence has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, against the accused-petitioner. 3. At the time of taking cognizance, the Court has to see, whether from the evidence of the complainant; his witnesses; and the documents on record, any prima facie case to proceed against the accused, is made out or not. If, there is prima facie evidence to proceed against the accused, then, the Court can take the cognizance. 4. In the case of Banshi Lal v. State, (1991 (1) RLW 86) , this Court has held as under : "........ As the order taking cognizance is an ex parte order passed by the learned Magistrate, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the accused, therefore, if the accused have any grievance against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, then, they can agitate the grievances and raise objections before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate will consider all those objections raised by the accused. If after hearing the arguments the Court is of the opinion that no case is made out, then, it may discharge the accused-petitioners. But, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with or quashed by this Court, under its inherent powers, at this stage." 5. In the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala & Another, JT 1991 (4) SC 464 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that "it is open to the accused to plead before the Trial Court that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The Trial Court may drop the proceedings, if it is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence, for which, the accused could be tried. No specific provision is required for the Trial Court, to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The order, issuing the process, is an interim order, and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued, is no bar to drop the proceedings, if the complaint does not disclose any offence against the accused." 6. The order, issuing the process, is an interim order, and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued, is no bar to drop the proceedings, if the complaint does not disclose any offence against the accused." 6. Having regard to the above decision of this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the accused-petitioners can approach the concerned Magistrate and move an application for dropping of the proceedings, by raising objections, which they want to raise, and upon doing so, the learned Magistrate may consider the matter, and if he finds that the matter requires to be dropped, he may do so. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused-petitioners may move the learned Magistrate concerned, for dropping the proceedings, by taking all the objections, which they want to take. In case, such an application is moved before the learned Magistrate, he would consider the matter and if he is satisfied that there is no offence, for which, the accused- petitioners could be tried, he is competent to drop the proceedings. 8. With such directions/observations, the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******