JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner accused in Criminal Case No. 1215/06 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, preferring this petition requests for quashing the proceedings of above criminal case. 2. The short facts alleged appear to be that one Dinesh Nath married in November, 2005 committed suicide on 1.1.2006 for which proceedings under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code registered and afterwards on complaint of deceased's father, F.I.R. No. 19/06 registered for offences of section 306 Indian Penal Code against Dinesh Nath's in-laws. On conclusion of investigation, negative report under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code submitted. After hearing the complainant respondent No. 2, learned Magistrate, vide order dated 10.8.2006 taking cognizance for offence under section 306 Indian Penal Code registered case against the petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and grand father-in-law of deceased. 3. The revision challenging the order of cognizance being No. 1042/06 was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.1.2007. Consequently preferred this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that it is alleged to be a unique case where husband has committed suicide and allegations of elements of offences for section 306 Indian Penal Code are against the in-laws. Argued that such an eventuality is not possible rather absurdity and no case for taking cognizance is made out. Argued that registering criminal case for petitioners is abuse of process of Court not based on facts reasons described in the police report are not considered by the learned Magistrate and by learned Sessions Judge too. On alleged facts, it is stressed that no case for taking cognizance is made out. 5. In support of contentions, reliance is placed on following decisions:- 1. Sanju @ Sanjay Singh v. State of M.P., 2002 (6) SPJ 354 : 2002 (45) ACC 113 (SC) 2. Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh and others, AIR 2007 SCW 3107 Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that there was sufficient material for taking cognizance and short reasons are described in cognizance order which order is further affirmed by Revisional Court. Argued that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magisterial Court is not required to weigh or examine the material, neither a detailed order is desirable. Also argued that when revision is dismissed, no recourse can be to section 482, Criminal Procedure CodeIn support of contentions, reliance is placed on following decisions:- 1. Argued that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magisterial Court is not required to weigh or examine the material, neither a detailed order is desirable. Also argued that when revision is dismissed, no recourse can be to section 482, Criminal Procedure CodeIn support of contentions, reliance is placed on following decisions:- 1. Kalamudeen and others v. State and others, 2007 (3) CJ (Raj) Cr 1255 2. Tej Singh and others v. Matoli and State, 2007 (2) Cr LR (Raj) 1398 3. Sukha Ram and another v. State, 2007 (1) Cr LR (Raj) 25 : 2007 (52) AIC 435 (Raj) 6. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that the order impugned is in accordance with law and alleged facts and no case for interference under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is made out. 7. Considered the rival arguments. The cognizance is taken on negative police report submitted after investigation-some reasons do appear in cognizance order cognizance order is further upheld by Sessions Court-as of now the case is posted for further proceedings. In such case and in petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court has to take extra-cautious care to not to discuss, examine, evaluate, probe, weigh or counter weigh the material, so as to be suggestive, inferrative or tendin to be inductive one (leaving aside straw exceptions as may be compelling in relation to further proceedings, if any. In such matters, even for describing or discussing arguments involving disputed facts to a limited extent, the Court has to take guard as above, particularly when alternative remedy is or can be available or resorted to. 8. In this particular case in hand, though the final report submitted describes reasons for their conclusion, learned Magistrate too have described reasons for taking cognizance which cannot be said to be absurd or non-acceptable on the face of it. Mention there in order is of the alleged suicidal note and also of diary of deceased running into 32 pages. Further the cognizance order is affirmed by the Revisional Court. Petitioner shall have all the opportunities to put up their case on legal and factual ground at the time of stage of arguments for framing of charge and at that stage, material available can be examined certainly at pedestal uttle above than the stage of cognizance. So, alternative statutory remedies are available.Looking to the above aspect, the petition is liable to be rejected. So, alternative statutory remedies are available.Looking to the above aspect, the petition is liable to be rejected. Hence, rejected.Petition Dismissed. *******