JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the order dated 30.10.2001 passed 1 by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 406 & 498-A IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 1.5.2001 the second respondent Smt. Kaushalya filed a written report at Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur stating inter alia that she was married with Ramesh on 11.5.84. The Gauna took place on 25.7.96. Her parents entrusted the articles, enlisted in the list, to her husband and in- laws. In the matrimonial home she gave birth to a son Sunil and a daughter Anchal. After giving birth to a female child the in-laws started misbehaving with her. They asked her to bring Rs. 50,000/- 10 from her parents. A further demand was raised for bringing golden ornaments. She was being mentally and physically tortured. She was being physically beaten and turned out from the house on 29.4.2001. On this information the police registered a case for offence under Section 498A, 406 & 323 I.P.C. The police after investigation forwarded a negative police report h the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur. The report was objected h by way of protest petition. The statements of Kaushalya and two other witnesses Ashok Kumar and Chaina Ram were recorded. On the basis of the material on record the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 30.10.2001 has taken cognizance for offence under Section 498A & 406 IPC. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the first petitioner Ramesh the second petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi the mother-in-law and the third petitioner Tej Raj the father-in-law are living separately from the deserted Smt. Kaushalya and as such there is no truth in the allegations made in the complaint. The petitioners No. 4 & 5 are the sister-in-laws are living in a different town namely Merta. Similarly Sohan Raj the brother-in-law has no role to play. The learned counsel in his endeavour to show that the story put forward by the complainant is false and fabricated tried to show some Contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. He has also tried to justify the final report given by the police. 4. Similarly Sohan Raj the brother-in-law has no role to play. The learned counsel in his endeavour to show that the story put forward by the complainant is false and fabricated tried to show some Contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. He has also tried to justify the final report given by the police. 4. On careful consideration of the entire material, I am of the view that this is not the stage to inquire into the correctness of the allegations made by the second respondent Smt. Kaushalya. It is not in dispute that she has married with Ramesh. It is also not in dispute that the Muklava took place in the year 1996, that the statements as against Ramesh the husband, Smt. Shanti and Tej Raj mother-in-law and father-in-law cannot be disbelieved at this stage. The material on record is sufficient to send them for trial. As far as the petitioner No. 4 Smt. Meera and PW5 Smt. Rameshwari are concerned, they are married ladies living in different town. There is no allegation of cruelty against them. The articles were not entrusted to them. Similar is the case of 6th petitioner Sohan Raj. In view of this the petitioners No. 4, 5 & 6 cannot be send for trial for offence under Section 406, 498A IPC. The continuous proceedings against them is abuse of the process of the court. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jodhpur taking cognizance against petitioners No. 4, 5 & 6 Smt. Meera, Smt. Rameshwari and Sohan Raj is quashed and set aside. The trial as against the petitioners Ramesh, Smt. Shanti Devi and Tej Raj shall continue for offence under Section 406 & 498A IPC. Record of the case be returned forthwith.Revision Partly Allowed. *******