ORDER Heard. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 54 of 2005/Tr. No. 1238 of 2005 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners' for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Opposite Party No. 2 Geeta Devi filed a complaint petition on 15.1.2005 against the petitioners alleging, inter alia, therein that she was married to petitioner no. 1 in the year 1999. Some time after the marriage, the petitioners started torturing her for dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and ultimately on 10.7.2002 she was brutally assaulted by the petitioners though she was pregnant at that time and an attempt was also made to burn her. However, on the intervention of the villagers and with their help she came to her father's house. After birth of the child, no body from her Sasural also came in spite of the information given. 4. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and then she examined four witnesses in support of her case in an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. The learned S.D.J.M. after considering the statements of the complainant and the witnesses passed the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition are false. In fact, Opposite Party No.2 had love affair with one Raj Kumar Mallah and she had married the petitioner no. 1 against her will. On 26.9.2002 she fled away with the said lover. A news item to this effect was also published in daily "Dainik Jagaran" (Annexure-2) and thereafter she married her (sic). So, there was no question of any torture by the petitioners after the above date. Petitioner No. 1 also filed a Matrimonial Suit on 17.8.2002 (Matrimonial Suit No. 49 of 2002) at Gaya for divorce against the Opposite Party No.2 which has been allowed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Gaya on 30.4.2005. 7. The contention of the learned counsel, hence, is that the complaint has been filed with an oblique motive and is mala fide. 8. 7. The contention of the learned counsel, hence, is that the complaint has been filed with an oblique motive and is mala fide. 8. It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance and issuance of processes, the Magistrate is required only to see whether from the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on S.A. and the statement of the witnesses recorded during inquiry, any prima facie case is made out or not against the accused persons. Neither the Magistrate nor this Court in its inherent jurisdiction at this stage can consider the evidence of the accused. It can be considered at the time of trial. 9. So, when on the basis of the statement of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 202 of the Code, the learned S.D.J.M. has found a prima facie case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and has passed the impugned order, I do not find anything to interfere with it. 10. In the result, this application is dismissed.