Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Dikshit, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Mehta, learned APP on behalf of the State and Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2. 2. Pursuant to order dated 10-12-1998. the case diary has been received. 3. Invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have impugned the order dated 13-5-1998. by reason of which the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners. 4. Opposite party No.2. Meena Tripathi is the wife of Sudhanshu Mauli Tripathi. She lodged a First Information Report on 31-10-1991 alleging inter alia ill-treatment meted out to her due to non-fulfilment of the dowry demanded by the family members of her in-laws. 5. After completion of the investigation the Police filed charge - sheet and cognizance of the offence was taken against various sections including 498-A of the Penal Code. The petitioners impugned the said order in Cr. Misc. No 8637, of 1992. However on 21-7-1992 after petitioners this Court permitted them to withdraw this application with an observation that the petitioners may raise all these contentions raised in this application at an appropriate stage. Liberty was given to the petitioners for filing a petition for discharge. Thereafter the parties were heard on the question of discharge, which was rejected by a reasoned order, dated 22-1-1996. Again the said order was impugned before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5386 of 1996 (Annexure. 4). Before this Court a point was advanced that the learned Magistrate without - application of mind and without finding sufficient materials for proceedings declined the prayer of the petitioners for discharge. The learned Single Judge after perusal of the case diary was of the opinion that paragraphs mentioned by the learned Magistrate for his satisfaction were not sufficient to hold that there were sufficient materials for proceeding against the petitioners. Thus, the said petitioner was allowed and the order of framing charge was quashed. The matter was remitted to the learned - Magistrate to rehear the matter on merit and to pass necessary orders In accordance with law. This order-of the High Court is dated 19-1-1998 as contained in Annexure 4. On remand the learned Magistrate heard the parties and perused the case diary. From the impugned order it appears that after perusal of paragraphs 3.8.9. This order-of the High Court is dated 19-1-1998 as contained in Annexure 4. On remand the learned Magistrate heard the parties and perused the case diary. From the impugned order it appears that after perusal of paragraphs 3.8.9. 10, 12, 13, 16, 126, 129, 131, 137 as well as paragraphs 98 and 120, the Magistrate again found that there were sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that except the statement of the victim girl as contained in paragraph 3 of the case diary there is no sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners. He contends that without sufficient evidence the learned Magistrate ought not to have rejected the prayer of the petitioners for discharge. Moreover he submits that before- filing of the instant FIR, the husband of the informant i.e., Sudhanshu Mauli Tripathi filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Additional District Judge. Patna giving rise to Divorce Suit No. 29/90. Though it is not advert in the petition about final decision in the said suit but the learned Counsel submits that the said suit was dismissed and decree was passed in favour of the wife. However it is stated that the decision of the Family Court is pending in the appellate jurisdiction before this Court. 7. Mr. Mehta, the learned APP after going through the case diary has strongly countered the argument of Mr. Dikshit. He submits that besides the statement of the victim girl before the Police there are overwhelming evidence to connect these petitioners in the instant case. He has referred to paragraph 3 of the case diary and some relevant portions of paragraphs 16, 98 and 120. He has also referred to the statement of the victim girl recorded under Sec. 164, Cr. PC. He has also referred to a letter written by the informant, victim girl, to her father on 13-1992, which finds place in paragraph 126 of the case diary. According to him, at this stage there was Sufficient material before the learned Magistrate for framing charge and thus, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 8. It is now well settled that at the stage of framing of charge only, prima facie, believable case is required and seeking of independent corroboration is not justified. According to him, at this stage there was Sufficient material before the learned Magistrate for framing charge and thus, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 8. It is now well settled that at the stage of framing of charge only, prima facie, believable case is required and seeking of independent corroboration is not justified. Reference has been made to a decision reported in State of Maharashtra V/s. Priya Sharan Maharaj. 9. After hearing the parties at length and considering the statements made in the case diary, I am of the view that no illegality can be found out from the impugned order. The learned Magistrate after going through the relevant paragraphs of the case diary, being satisfied has come to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners. Only because, the learned Magistrate has not discussed in detail the statements of the witnesses recorded in various paragraphs of the case diary, in my opinion, cannot be a ground to challenge the order. This Court in order to satisfy itself called for the case diary and as noticed above Mr. Mehta has drawn by attention to various paragraphs of the case diary from which at least, prima facie, believable case is made out. 10. I find no merit in this application, which is accordingly, dismissed.