Judgment 1. Heard M/s Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh and Jai Prakash Singh, Advocates for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. for the State as also Sri Bipin Kumar learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 2. The three petitioners who alongwith another have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 317C/2005 have prayed for quashing of order dated 31.1.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 3. The complainant filed the complaint on 9.9.2005 alleging commission of offences under Sections 147, 498A, 406 and 420 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners with the allegation that his daughter was married to Himanshu Kumar, petitioner no. 3 herein, on 18.5.2005, but thereafter the father of Himanshu, Ram Sarowar Singh petitioner no. 1 herein, demanded Rs. one lac and one motorcycle from the complainant on the occasion of Ashirbwadi. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- was given to petitioner no. 1 for expenses to be incurred during mar-, riage and for buying gifts. It has also been alleged that the complainants daughter was never taken to the marital home due to non-fulfillment of the dowry demand. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that at the inquiry the victim girl, namely Khushbu Kumari, examined as C.W. 1, stated that she had never gone to the marital home nor any of the family members of her husband had tortured her. She also stated that on the date of marriage she was below 17 years of age. It was further submitted that prior to filing of the complaint petitioner no. She also stated that on the date of marriage she was below 17 years of age. It was further submitted that prior to filing of the complaint petitioner no. 1 had on 19.5.2005 submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Sheikhpura Police Station, to the effect, that on the date of occurrence i.e. 18.5.2005 his son Himanshu Kumar had been kidnapped on the basis whereof Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 125/2005 was registered under Section 363 I.P.C. against unknown and that as would appear the son was recovered after 12 days on 30.5.2005 and in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Himanshu Kumar had stated that on the relevant date as he reached near the Tati bridge four persons, namely, Tuntun Singh, Shankar Singh, Jitendra Singh (complainant) and Pappu Singh variously armed with firearms forcibly caught hold of him and took him to village Kamta and on the point of pistol he was forcibly made to marry Khushbu Kumari the daughter of the complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further sought to point out that Ravi Shankar and Pappu Singh happen to be the maternal uncle (mamu) and Tuntun Singh is the mausa of Khushbu Kumari. The learned counsel further pointed out that Pappu Singh is the son of Ram Nandan Singh one of the witnesses of the complaint. The learned counsel pointed out that it would be apparent from the supervision report of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 125/2005 that sufficient materials for submitting a charge-sheet against the aforesaid four persons was available for offences under Sections 363, 365, 120B I.P.C. and 3/5/6 of the Minor Marriage Prohibition Act and in fact a charge-sheet was submitted on 17.11.2005 for offences under Sections 363, 365, 120B I.P.C. against Ravi Shankar Singh and Tuntun Singh whereas the investigation was kept pending against Pappu Singh and Jitendra Singh. 6. It has further been submitted that on 16.1.2006 the petitioner had filed their vakalatnama in the complaint case as also a list of documents including the F.I.R., statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and supervision note in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 125/2005 before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura for consideration but without considering the same the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance. It was also submitted that since there had been no valid marriage, no offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act could be said to be made out against the petitioners and the complaint petition had only been filed with the ulterior motive of establishing the marriage of the daughter of the complainant. It was also submitted that since the victim girl had never come to her marital home, as she had stated in her deposition at the inquiry, the petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability of offences under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and in the circumstances the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Admittedly at the time of taking cognizance following an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is debarred from looking into documents filed by the defence or of hearing them. In that sense the learned Magistrate was fully justified in not considering the documents and vakalatnama filed by the petitioners. However, since a prima facie case of kidnapping of Himanshu Kumar by the complainant and others has been found to be prima facie true by the police in course of investigation in Sheikhpur P.S. Case No. 125/2005 the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. That apart it is evident from the statement of the victim girl that she had never been to the marital home. If that be so, then there could be no liability on the part of the petitioners of having committed an offence under Section 498A I.P.C. since the ingredients of the offence thereunder does not appear to have been made out. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the complaint has been filed by the complainant not only to demolish the findings of the police in course of investigation in respect of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 125/ 2005 but also to establish the fact of alleged marriage of Himanshu with Khushbu Kumari and in doing so allegation of demand for dowry had been made out. 10. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuance of the criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 317C/2005 appears to be an abuse of the process of Court and is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.