Judgment 1. The order under challenge is dated 28th February, 2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in G.R. No. 3066/04 (Nath Nagar P.S. Case no. 309/04) whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been asked to face trial on the basis of prima facie case being made out against him, for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 120B, 323, 307, 308 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. The opposite party no. 2 Bibi Arjoo had earlier filed complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, bearing no. 1597/2004, copy of which was shown to the concerned Police Station, Nath Nagar for institution of the F.I.R. and thereby investigation as provided under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. The fact, in brief, is to this effect that the marriage of Bibi Arjoo was solemnised on 9.5.2003 with petitioner Mir Manjar Hussain @ Manjar Hussain and, as such, she went and started living with her husband and in-laws at their place but her torture commenced both mental and physical in various ways for the reason that she did not succumb to the pressure of her in-law members for solemnisation of marriage of her nanad Rinki (sister-in-law) with her brother. On account of disapproval of her gotta marriage, she had to incur wrath of her in-law members in various ways but even then she remained in her sasural. She became pregnant but there was persistent demand for colour T.V., Motor bike and Rs. 25,000/- by way of cash. Notice through Lawyer was also sent in such connection and due to intervention of concerned officer-in charge she started living at her sasural but her torture, threat etc. remain unabated. Ultimately she was forced to sign on ekrarnama without going through contents of the same on 1.12.2003. Even attempt to finish her life was also made and her signature was also obtained on 21.12.03 on some paper. 5. remain unabated. Ultimately she was forced to sign on ekrarnama without going through contents of the same on 1.12.2003. Even attempt to finish her life was also made and her signature was also obtained on 21.12.03 on some paper. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, as a matter of fact, the complainant opposite party Bibi Arjoo herself had agreed to seek divorce by way of "khula" on 21.11.03 and thereafter she started living in her naihar but due to some further development, interference by some of her family members she lodged the present case in tthe month of October, 2004, He further contended that paper of "khula" by virtue of which there could be presumption of severance of relationship between the couple right in the month of October, 2003, would question filing of complaint after about an year, and for that there could be presumption of false and fabricated case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 by controverting such submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that said paper of "khula" purported to have been signed by opposite party Bibi Arjoo on 21st December, 2003, was a forged and fabricated one and creation of the petitioner. Unless that document is held to be genuine, the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be quashed in anticipation of such presumption of its being genuine and valid. 7. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason and valid ground for interference in the impugned order, which is based on submission of charge-sheet, which is culmination of the investigation of the case launched by the complainant opposite party Bibi Arjoo against the petitioner and others, on the materials so collected in course of investigation. 8. In the result, the petition stands dismissed.