Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is application filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 16.3.2005 passed by Sri S.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Tr. Case No. 4667 of 2004, G.R. No. 3020 of 2002 by which he has ordered for framing of charges under Secs. 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 3. It appears that one Shahzadi Begum, wife of petitioner No. 1 filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah for taking action u/s. 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The complaint was sent to the police station for institution of case and for investigation. The police after completing investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioners under Secs. 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Then the informant filed a petition for framing charges accordingly. Sri S.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate after perusing the case record, case diary found sufficient material against the petitioners for framing charges under Secs. 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he passed the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated due to enmity. The informant is the only daughter of her father. Her father wanted her to live in his house but her husband (petitioner No. 1) did not like it. Ultimately, petitioner No. 1 had to file a Matrimonial case (Matrimonial Suit No. 16 of 2001) on 23.4.2001 at Muzaffarpur and when the informant came to know of it, she filed a complaint petition only to put pressure on the petitioners. He also submitted that no offence under Dowry Prohibition Act is made out on the basis of the allegations made. 5. The learned A.P.P. defended the order. 6. As provided under Secs. He also submitted that no offence under Dowry Prohibition Act is made out on the basis of the allegations made. 5. The learned A.P.P. defended the order. 6. As provided under Secs. 239 and 240 of the Code, at the time of framing of charge, the learned Magistrate has only to consider the police report and the documents sent with it and if after considering these and hearing the parties, if he considers the charge against the accused persons groundless, he has to discharge the accused but if he finds that the petitioners has committed an offence which he is competent to try, he must frame, charge. He is not required, at this stage, to consider the defence of the accused. He cannot, at this stage, also consider any document of the accused which is to be tested for offence. 7. Therefore, when the learned Magistrate after considering the chargesheet and the materials collected in the case diary has found a prima facie case for the above offences and passed the Impugned order, I do not find any infirmity in it. The F.I.R. shows that there is averment in it that the petitioners demanded Rs. 40,000.00 in cash and a colour T.V. and for that tortured the informant. It is also alleged that out of the above demand, Rs. 20,000.00 was paid to the petitioners. Chargesheet has also been submitted u/s. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. So it cannot be said that no offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners. 8. In the result, I do not find any merits in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.