JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Accused No. 1 in I. C. C. No. 38 of 1999 of the Court of S. D. J. M, Patnagarh has filed this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') with the prayer to quash the said complaint and the criminal proceeding. Complainant is the opposite party in this case. 2. Opposite party filed the complaint which has been registered as I. C C. No. 38 of 1999 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Patnagarh. In that complaint she alleges that her, husband i.e., the petitioner with his brother and sister (the co-accused) subjected her to ill-treatment and cruelty by sharing common intention and ultimately she was driven out from the matrimonial house on 2-7-1999. She filed the said complaint on 31-8-1999. In the meantime, on 9-8-1999 petitioner filed an application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights and that has been registered as Title Suit No. 63 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patnagarh. Petitioner thus claims that the aforesaid criminal proceeding has been instituted by the opposite party vindictively with false allegation as a counterblast to the civil proceeding instituted by him and, therefore, the Criminal proceeding be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the same point argued for quashing order of cognizance under Sections 498A/34, I. P. C. passed on 25-11-1999. He argued that bona fide in the petitioner's contention is readable from the conduct of the opposite party in lodging the complaint on 31-8-1999, though she alleged the date of desertion to be on 2-7-1999. Learned Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, argued that immediately after the desertion opposite party could not think of instituting a complaint or resorting to a criminal case with the hope of an amicable settlement and, therefore, the delay in filing the complaint cannot be attributed as an afterthought. He further argued that since the statement of the complainant and her witnesses examined in the inquiry u/s 202 of the Code makes out a prima facie case for the offence under Sections 498A/34, I. P. C. at the threshold of the proceeding, this Court should not enter into a roving inquiry to find out which version is correct. He further argued that since the statement of the complainant and her witnesses examined in the inquiry u/s 202 of the Code makes out a prima facie case for the offence under Sections 498A/34, I. P. C. at the threshold of the proceeding, this Court should not enter into a roving inquiry to find out which version is correct. According to him, that is the matter which can be assessed at the time of trial. 3. On due consideration of the rival contention this Court finds that no material has been placed before this Court to show or suggest that after being aware of institution of the civil proceeding, the complainant filed the complaint case. Therefore, an inference cannot be readily drawn that because the civil proceeding was instituted earlier in point of time therefore, the complaint which was instituted a few weeks thereafter, is with the intention to falsely implicate the petitioners or as a measure of counterblast to the civil proceeding instituted by the petitioner. Such fact can be properly assessed on proper scrutiny of evidence. Be that as it may, the assertion in the complaint as well as the contention of the complainant leave no room for doubt that there is a dispute between the parties as a result of which the spouses are living separately. In that context, the statement of the complainant and her witnesses who were examined in course of the inquiry u/s 202 of the Code, as per the findings of the learned S.D.J.M, makes out a prima facie case for the offence under Sections 498A/34, I. P. C. Nothing has been shown on record that statements of the complainant and her witnesses (examined u/s 202 of the Code) does not disclose a prima facie, case for the alleged offence or such facts and evidence are inherently improbable or patently absurd so that no prudent man will believe the same. It is the settled position of law that at the stage of considering issue of process after taking cognizance of offence the cognizance taking Magistrate is to take a prima facie view of the evidence available to him. At that stage, the accused has no role to play. Though an accused is entitled to pray for recall or quashing of the order of cognizance but in that respect, there must be an exceptional circumstance, such as, absence of a prima facie case. At that stage, the accused has no role to play. Though an accused is entitled to pray for recall or quashing of the order of cognizance but in that respect, there must be an exceptional circumstance, such as, absence of a prima facie case. Similarly, an order of cognizance can be interfered with if the allegation is found to be inherently improbable or false on the face of it. No such circumstance has been shown to be existing. Under such circumstance, it is not prudent to invoke the inherent power to interfere with a lawful order passed by learned S.D.J.M. in registering the complaint and taking cognizance of the offence besides issuing process after being satisfied about existence of prima facie material to call upon the accused persons to face the trial. Under such circumstance, prayer of the petitioner to quash the cognizance order/the criminal proceeding is found to be devoid of merit and accordingly rejected. Consequently, the Criminal Misc. Case stands dismissed. 4. At the time of argument learned counsel for the petitioner also made a prayer that in the event the application u/s 482, Cr. P. C. shall not be allowed then the date of appearance of the petitioners in the Court below may be extended for a period of four weeks inasmuch as because of pendency of the application u/s 482, of the Code and till communication of the result petitioner may not be in a position to appear. Learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party has no objection to that submission. On the application of the petitioner interim stay has been granted by this Court. Therefore, considering the aforesaid prayer, this Court directs that if the petitioner shall appear before the S.D.J.M., Patnagarh by 15th May, 2001, then that may be regarded as appearance in that Court in accordance with the summons issued and application for bail, if filed be considered accordingly. 5. Crl. Misc. case dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed