ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 420, IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. In short the facts are that the opposite party No. 2 Ram Kumar Singh has filed a complaint petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad alleging therein that he was looking for a boy for the marriage of his daughter and in that course, he along with the witnesses and family members went to see the son of Sheo Prasad Singh (petitioner No. 3). Sheo Prasad Singh came to Jharia along with his relatives and accepted the proposal of marriage of his son Bikash Singh @ Bikash Kumar Singh, but he demanded the huge amount for the marriage. However, after negotiations the complainant accepted the demand of the accused persons of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the expenses of marriage, watch, gold chain, ring, clothes V.I.P. bags, ornaments etc. and accordingly a sum of Rs. 95,000/- was paid in two installments. 4. After engagement, the date of marriage was fixed in the month of April, but later on it was changed to 6.5.2006. It is further alleged that accordingly the complainant went to Bokaro for urgent meeting on 17.3.2006 and there, it is said that all the accused persons put forward further demand of dowry by way of Hero Honda motorcycle, Freeze, Colour television and Rs. 90,000/- cash, but the complainant showed his inability to fulfil the said demand of dowry and requested the accused persons to perform the marriage peacefully but all the accused persons refused to perform the marriage on the date and time fixed and stated that until and unless the demand of dowry is fulfilled, the marriage would not be solemnized. They did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and ultimately the proposal of marriage of the complainant's daughter with the son of the petitioner No. 3 did not matrimonies. Thereafter the complainant went to the police, but he was advised to lodge the complaint in Court. In this way the complainant alleged that the accused persons committed the offence of cheating and fraud on him and also under the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Thereafter the complainant went to the police, but he was advised to lodge the complaint in Court. In this way the complainant alleged that the accused persons committed the offence of cheating and fraud on him and also under the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. The learned Magistrate after registering the complaint, examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and also recorded the statement of the witnesses examined during enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C. produced on behalf of the complainant and, thereafter, by the impugned order, took cognizance of the offences finding prima facie case against the accused persons and called proceeding against them. 6. Mr. Rajan Raj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, after relying on the decisions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in 1991 CrI LJ 2333 and 1991 (3) Cri 505, judgment of Orissa High Court reported in 1988 (3) Crimes 87 , judgment of Gauhati High Court reported in 1991 (2) Crimes 60, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in 1960 Cri LJ 1239 , has submitted that no specific allegation has been made against any particular accused and there is no allegation as to whom the alleged money was paid as expenses of marriage. It is further submitted that if the allegation made in the complaint petition is taken to be correct, no case is made out against the petitioner for which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. 7. The law is well settled with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by the High Court. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal against the subjective satisfaction of Magistrate in finding prima facie case for taking cognizance. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474 , it has been laid down that inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. should be exercised only in rare cases and that too in order to correct the patent illegality or where some miscarriage of justice has been done. The present case does not come under any of the category mentioned by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. P.C. should be exercised only in rare cases and that too in order to correct the patent illegality or where some miscarriage of justice has been done. The present case does not come under any of the category mentioned by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. It is also submitted that at the stage of giving order taking cognizance, the Magistrate has to apply his mind only to the facts as to whether material placed before him on behalf of the complainant, whether any prima facie case for commission of alleged offence is made out or not? Truthfulness or veracity of the allegation made by the complainant has not to be examined at this stage. 8. From the impugned order, I find that the learned Magistrate after considering the allegation made in the complaint petition, his statement made on allegation and also statement of the witnesses examined during enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C. has taken cognizance of the offences finding prima facie case against the accused persons. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, having found no merit this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.