JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. The four persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 896 of 2003 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 15.4.2004 passed therein by Sri Alok Raj, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Aurangabad, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 379/34 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case based on the complaint filed by one Sanjay Kumar Sinha, who has not even been impleaded as opposite party herein, is that his marriage with Indu Sinha was solemnized on 19.6.1998 and out of the wedlock one child was born at where they were living together as husband and wife. It is said that since the complainant did not manage to obtain a substantial position after the marriage the relatives of his wife, i.e., her brothers, sister and mother, were not very satisfied with the marriage and so they had taken her away to the parental home and later on they tried to dissolve the marriage but as the complainant was not ready and to the contrary wanted to keep his wife and provide her with comforts and dignity to the best of his ability they could not succeed. It is said that after sometime relatives of the wife again wanted to pressurize the complainant to dissolve the marriage and when he did not condescend the said relatives threatened him with dire consequences and they tried to create a strain in his cordial relationship with his wife in which they could not succeed since there was intervention of well wishers of the parties and the relatives of the wife compelled them to send her to her matrimonial home where she arrived on 21.8.2003. It has been stated that on 14.9.2003, accused Shashi Kumar Sinha, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Sita Devi and Deepak Kumar Goswami, his brothers-in-law, mother-in-law and nephew came to the house of the complainant and told them that she had come to know that Indu had fallen seriously ill and as such they have come to see her and enquire about her condition. Since Indu was slightly indisposed the accused persons remained in the house in the night as guests and when he woke up early in the morning at about 5 A.M he found his wife alongwith the accused persons missing. Since Indu was slightly indisposed the accused persons remained in the house in the night as guests and when he woke up early in the morning at about 5 A.M he found his wife alongwith the accused persons missing. On inquiry he was informed by some villagers that they had been seen going towards the east but they could not be located. It is also alleged that he had been told by the accused persons on several occasions that since he was a poor person and not capable of maintaining Indu in a lavish manner it would be beneficial for both to dissolve the marriage and Indu be married to a person with substantial means so that she may lead her lavish life. It is also alleged that on returning home he found his brief case containing Rs. 5000/- in cash and golden chain worth Rs. 4000/-, some cloths and wrist watch missing. 3. After holding an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate found a case under Sections 379/34 I.P.C. to have been made out against the petitioners and accordingly summoned them by the impugned order. 4. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has sought to submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case as a counter blast to Complaint Case No. 205 of 2001 filed by Indu before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribath alleging commission of offence under Section 498A I.P.C. which had resulted consequent to Indu allegedly having been brutally assaulted and tortured by her husband and that she was staying in the brothers house at Hazaribagh since 2001 and the subsequent Maintenance Case No. 95 of 2002 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh wherein Indu Sinha on behalf of herself and the minor son had sought for maintenance . It is further submitted that it was only after the complainant herein had been enlarged on bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 205 of 2001 that he has filed the instant complaint on false allegations. It was also sought to be submitted with reference to the order granting bail to the complainant of the instant case that the wife was not willing to stay with him and the story of the accused persons having taken away Indu is totally false. 5. It was also sought to be submitted with reference to the order granting bail to the complainant of the instant case that the wife was not willing to stay with him and the story of the accused persons having taken away Indu is totally false. 5. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners unfortunately happens to be their defence which cannot be looked into at this stage. 6. Admittedly, an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was held by the learned Magistrate before he took cognizance. The law on this issue is by now well settled and reference can be made to the decision of Chandradeo V/s. Prokash Chandra, AIR 1963 SC 1430 , wherein their Lordships observed that since the object of an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true the Magistrate acting under Section 203 has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In order to come to this conclusion he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded by him in an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and he is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. Their Lordships further observed that where there is prima facie evidence, even though an accused may have a defence, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be refused. 7. In view of the categoric decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed.