ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 28.01.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 645/05 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance against eight accused persons under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners who happen to be the father and elder brother that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted and that as a matter of fact Anil Kumar Singh was legally married with Meera Devi on 11.2.1987 and a son and a daughter were born out of the wedlock. It his further been submitted that later on Anil Kumar Singh separated from Meera Devi and came into contact with the complainant, Bibi Noorjahan alias Noor Bano and illicit relationship flourished in between two and it was with ulterior motive of parting with moveable and immoveable properties of Anil Kumar Singh with Bibi Noor Jahan claiming herself as Anita Devi filed the instant complaint. In support of the sub-missions learned counsel relied upon several documents including the voter lists of 1998, 1995 and 2004 in all of which Meera Devi has been shown the wife of Anil Kumar Singh, son of Sukhdeo Prasad. Learned counsel also relied on F.I.R. of Simri Bakhtiarpur P.S. Case No. 13/04 instituted at the instance of Meera Devi against her husband and the said Anita Devi @ Noorjahan wherein the husband Anil Kumar Singh was granted bail vide order dated 25.1 .2005 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33898/04. From perusal of the order granting bail it would appear that it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner, i.e. Anil Kumar Singh that in the event the petitioner is released on bail, he shall not visit his ancestral house in the company of Anita Devi @ Noor Jahan, daughter of Md. Zamaluddin. This only goes to show that Anil Kumar Singh has admitted his relationship with Anita Devi @ Noar Jahan. The other submission advanced by the learned counsel is that the instant case is lodged after 21 years inasmuch as the occurrence is said to be between the period 1986 continuously till 10.6.2005 and the learned Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance in the face of these documents. 4. The other submission advanced by the learned counsel is that the instant case is lodged after 21 years inasmuch as the occurrence is said to be between the period 1986 continuously till 10.6.2005 and the learned Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance in the face of these documents. 4. Be that as it may, I am no inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners at the present moment. However, they are given liberty to raise all these issues before the court below at the time of framing of charge. 5. With the aforesaid observations the application is disposed of.