JUDGMENT : P. K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. In this application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner prays to quash the order of cognizance dated 15.12.1999 in G.R. Case No. 1515 of 1999. 3. Petitioner is the accused in G. R. Case No. 1515 of 1999 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and opposite party No. 2 is the informant in that case. According to the case of the prosecution, because of intimacy of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2, they performed their marriage behind the back of their parents first in the temple and thereafter by registration of the marriage. Thereafter dispute arose between the parties. According to the informant after parents of both the parties came to know about the aforesaid marriage, parents of the petitioner started demanding dowry and petitioner joined with them on such demand and even after payment of substantial amount towards dowry further demands were made and on that account she was ill-treated, tortured and deserted. The aforesaid allegation was investigated and chargesheet was submitted u/s 498-A, IPC only against the petitioner. O. P. No. 2 filed an application in the Court below to add the parents-in-law as the accused. That application was rejected by the S.D.J.M. As against that order O. P. No. 2 approached this Court by filing an application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 2448 of 2000. On 1st November, 2000 that application was disposed of by this Court with the observation that at appropriate stage of the proceeding, if circumstances will so demand, petitioner may move application u/s 319, Cr.P.C. 4. Petitioner was arrested in course of investigation and was released on bail as per the order of Court of Session. As against the order of cognizance petitioner filed a revision application registered as Criminal Revision No. 79 of 2000 and disposed of on 18.2.2002 by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Bhubaneswar. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the order taking cognizance is an interlocutory order. When petitioner advanced the contention regarding absence of a prima facie case in toto notwithstanding the observations of the Sessions Judge, this Court called for the LCR for perusal to find out if there does not exist a prima facie case for the offence u/s 498-A, IPC. When petitioner advanced the contention regarding absence of a prima facie case in toto notwithstanding the observations of the Sessions Judge, this Court called for the LCR for perusal to find out if there does not exist a prima facie case for the offence u/s 498-A, IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that notwithstanding statement recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C. of the opposite party No. 2 was available in the Case Diary, at her instance, her statement was recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C. and on a comparison of both the statements there appears glaring contradictions to falsify the allegations made u/s 498-A, IPC. On a perusal of the statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C. so also the statement u/s 161, Cr.P.C. this Court finds existence of a prima facie case for the offence u/s 498-A, IPC. Descripancies and contradictions which are pointed out by the petitioner do not belie the allegations made to constitute the offence u/s 498-A, IPC. Besides that, such a matter shall come for consideration at the time of trial and such descripancies are not so glaring that the criminal proceeding should be closed at its threshold. Thus, this Court is not inclined to exercise the inherent power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to interfere with the order of cognizance. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed. Send back the LCR at once to the Court below along with a copy of this order. 6. Parties to the proceeding pray for expeditious disposal of the Criminal proceeding. Therefore, learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar shall see to it that trial of the case is taken up on day to day basis unless for reasons to be recorded it cannot be so taken up. Final Result : Dismissed