ORDER Narain Singh "Azad", J. The petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 9th January, 2001, passed in Criminal Case No. 17/2001, wherein, JMFC Baihar, Dist. Balaghat, took cognizance of offences against this petitioner, for offences punishable u/s 494 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, so also the order dated 11-2-2002 wherein, petitioner's application filed u/s 203 and 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of order dated 9-1-2002, stood disallowed and rejected by the learned JMFC, Baihar. Considering the procedure provided in Chapter XV and XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains to receipt and dealing with the private complaint so also the commencement of the proceedings before the Magistrate on receipt of private complaint, it is settled by now through catena of cases that till a Magistrate records his satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for taking cognizance of offence, as provided in sub-section (1) of section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has no right of hearing, but once a process is ordered to be issued, he may challenge the same by filing a revision. In Harekrushna Mohanty Vs. Adikando Behera, and In Re: Rajangam and Another, also it is explained that accused has no right of hearing till process is ordered to be issued. Of course, in case of no evidence only a remedy in exercise of inherent powers is dictated to be permissible in M/s Prestolite of India Ltd., and another vs. The Munsif Magistrate, Hawaii and another, reported in 7975 Cri. L.J. 538, but in this case, perusal of certified copy of statements of Nutan Bai and her father Gopal Prasad, who supported the complaint on the facts of remarriage and cruelty, discloses that the learned JMFC Baihar has not taken cognizance of offences punishable u/s 494 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against this petitioner, without there being any evidence. It is a settled position of law that at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant has to be accepted at its face value and the truthfulness or probability of its truthfulness or otherwise is not to be examined, while considering the cases for taking cognizance of the offence. Thus this petition does not merit calling exercise of inherent powers and therefore, the same stands disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion hearing.