JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The Petitioner, who is an accused in a case registered under Sections 494, 498-A and 120(B), IPC has challenged the impugned order on the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in I.C.C. No. 73 of 1997, taking cognizance of the offences against the Petitioner. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on a reading of the complaint petition alongwith the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure no case under the aforesaid section is made out and therefore the order of cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 3. Law is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure can quash or set aside the order of a learned Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process only in special circumstances of the case, where the allegation made in the complaint or the statements of witnesses recorded in support of it taken at their fresh value, make out no case against the accused or that the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. Cognizance also can be quashed in a case where the allegations and insuniations in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable, on which no prudent person can ever reach at a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is arbitrary or capricious being based or no evidence or on materials, which are irrelevant or inadmissible or where the order of cognizance ;s taken without a sanction. 4. A perusal of the complaint petition clearly makes out a case of demand of a motor-cycle as dowry and the parents of the girl having not been able to fulfil the said demand, she was tortured both physically and mentally. The Petitioner-husband had filed a divorce petition bearing Matrimonial Title Suit No. 72 of 1992 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sonepur, which was decreed ex parte, as against which an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC was filed by the opposite party-wife. During the pendency of the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree, the Petitioner again has married. Division) Sonepur, which was decreed ex parte, as against which an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC was filed by the opposite party-wife. During the pendency of the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree, the Petitioner again has married. The allegation of the complainant is corroborated by the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure Thus, this is not a case where it can be said that the perusal of the complaint petition and the statements of witnesses so recorded during enquiry does not constitute an offence or that there is no legal evidence at all in support of the prosecution. The complainant is still to lead her evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that the continuance of the proceeding would result either in waste of public time or money or will cause great prejudice to the accused concerned. Rather, the inherent power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure can appropriately be exercised to prevent abuse of any process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and should not be exercised to throttle a legitimate prosecution. A reference may be made to the decisions of the apex Court in Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, ; Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, and State of Jammu and Kashmir, Vs. Romesh Chander and others, . 5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of cognizance and accordingly this petition is rejected. Final Result : Dismissed