JUDGMENT The revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. (E) 18/2005, now pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Contai. 2. Petitioners herein have prayed for quashing the case registered under Sections 498(A)/ 384 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. The main contention of the petitioners as reflected in the recital of the revisional application appears to be that an application was filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage in connection with M.A.T. Suit No. 238/2003. Opposite Party No. 2 entered appearance in connection with the said suit and filed an application on 29.8.2003, expressing her willingness and gave her consent for divorce. 4. She also received all her ornaments, furniture and cash of Rs. 15,000/-. The matrimonial suit was disposed of on 3.9.2003 and the marriage tie between the parties was dissolved by a decree for divorce passed by the learned Court below. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that as the marriage tie is no more in existence and as the criminal case was initiated after the decree for divorce, the same is not maintainable in the eye of law and as such the entire proceeding is required to be quashed in exercise of power of this Court vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners in support of the revisional application submitted that in view of the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Contai in connection with Matrimonial Suit No. 238/2003 whereby the learned Civil Court dissolved the Matrimonial tie between the parties on consideration of the solenama petition and granted a decree for divorce, then the criminal prosecution, which is registered after the aforesaid decree cannot continue. 7. In support of the contention learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to the following decisions:- (1) Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38. (2) State of J & K v. Romesh Chander & Ors., reported in 1997 (1) Supreme Court Cases 90. (3) Ashok Singhal v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2005 Cri. LJ 2324. (4) Mrs. Rupinder Kaur & Anr. v. State (Govt. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38. (2) State of J & K v. Romesh Chander & Ors., reported in 1997 (1) Supreme Court Cases 90. (3) Ashok Singhal v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2005 Cri. LJ 2324. (4) Mrs. Rupinder Kaur & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT) & Anr., reported in 2000 Cri. LJ 1520. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces Case Diary and drew the attention of this Court to the recital in the petition of complaint as well as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during investigation conducted by the police officer. 9. In this case charge-sheet is already submitted against the accused persons (petitioners herein) for commission of offence punishable under various provisions of Indian Penal Code as mentioned above. 10. The main contention of the petitioners if accepted will lead to the proposition that in order to prosecute the husband or the relatives of the husband, within the meaning of Section 498A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the marriage tie between the parties must be subsisting. I am afraid that this is not the correct proposition of law. It is not a pre-condition that in order to initiate a prosecution under Section 498A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the marriage tie between the parties must be subsisting on the date of filing the petition of complaint or FIR. 11. The decision referred by the learned Advocate for the petitioners as stated above has no manner of application for deciding the present revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors. case (supra), Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution. 13. In State of J & K v. Romesh Chander & Ors. case (supra), Supreme Court held that High Court must look into the relevant law and allegations made in the charge-sheet and then consider whether any offence has been made out. 14. So far as the present case is concerned, the FIR as well as the materials in the charge-sheet discloses offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. 15. In Mrs. Rupinder Kaur & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT) & Anr. 14. So far as the present case is concerned, the FIR as well as the materials in the charge-sheet discloses offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. 15. In Mrs. Rupinder Kaur & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT) & Anr. case (supra), learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court considered a case where documents falsify the averments made by the complainant in the FIR. 16. So far as the present case is concerned, FIR disclosed commission of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code along with other provisions of law. 17. In Ashok Singhal v. State of U.P. & Anr. case (supra), learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court while considering the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held that no meticulous examination of evidence or examination of defence case is permissible at this stage. 18. The scope of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is explained by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335. 19. The illustrative categories indicated by Supreme Court are as follows:- "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 20. So far as the present case is concerned, on perusal of the FIR it appears that the opposite party was subjected to cruelty and torture after marriage over demand of dowry. It is also stated in the FIR that the de facto complainant was forced by the accused persons to put her signature on some blank papers on 10.10.2003. The allegation prima facie attracts the provision of Sections 498A/384 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. On perusal of the materials available in the Case Diary including the statement of witnesses, it appears that during investigation the police officer collected evidence including statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in support of the allegation as disclosed in the FIR. 22. In this case charge-sheet is already submitted, so at the stage of framing charge, learned Court below is required to look into whether the materials collected justifies calling upon the accused persons to face trial for commission of offence alleged to have been committed by them. 23. At this stage the learned Court below is not to consider whether the evidence collected is sufficient to convict the accused persons. 24. In view of my above discussion, I am unable to agree with the submission made by learned Advocate for the petitioners. 25. 23. At this stage the learned Court below is not to consider whether the evidence collected is sufficient to convict the accused persons. 24. In view of my above discussion, I am unable to agree with the submission made by learned Advocate for the petitioners. 25. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned Advocate for the State that this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 26. The revisional application is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. 27. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated. 29. Criminal section is directed to forward a copy of the order to learned Court below. 30. Criminal section is also directed to supply urgent certified copy of the order to the parties as and when applied for. Case Diary be returned.