JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 4.3.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari in Complaint Case No. 365 of 2002, Tr. No. 1696 of 2003. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2, namely, Khairoon Nisha filed a complaint in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 365 of 2002. It was alleged in the complaint petition that accused persons/petitioners were repeatedly committing offences against the complainant and her husband. It was alleged that on one occasion one Shisham tree was cut by accused persons. Thereafter, she had gone to the Police Station for getting the case registered, but since the petitioners were having good relation with one of the Honble Ministers, the police did not entertain her complain. Again accused persons had harvested crops of the complainant for an amount of 15,000/-. Thereafter she had gone to lodge a case in the Police Station, but that too was refused. It was alleged in the present complaint that accused persons had threatened for kidnapping the husband of the complainant and thereafter on 12.11.2002 the husband of the complainant was kidnapped by the accused persons. This time again police refused to lodge any case. Thereafter the present complaint was filed. After conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 4.3.2003 took cognizance of offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance of offence dated 4.3.2003, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 1.3.2004, while issuing notice to Opp. Party No. 2, this Court directed that till further order no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with Tr. No. 1696 of 2003/ C. No. 365 of 2002. Subsequently, on 23.3.2004 the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceeding in Tr. No. 1696 of 2003/ C. No. 165 of 2002 pending in the court of Sri S.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raxaul at Motihari, shall remain stayed. No. 1696 of 2003/ C. No. 365 of 2002. Subsequently, on 23.3.2004 the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceeding in Tr. No. 1696 of 2003/ C. No. 165 of 2002 pending in the court of Sri S.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raxaul at Motihari, shall remain stayed. The order of stay is still continuing. 4. Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the present complaint petition was filed maliciously. It was further submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed a cryptic order, whereas at the stage of enquiry itself, the petitioners had appeared before the learned Magistrate and had produced certain documents before the court, but the learned Magistrate has not at all seen any documents without any reason. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence. Sri Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointedly placed Annexure-2 to the petition, which is a photo copy of the certified copy of the F.I.R. in Adapur PS. Case No. 133 of 2002, which was registered on 3.12.2002. It was submitted, while referring to Annexure-2 to the petition, that the allegation of kidnapping was itself falsified on the ground that only after the filing of the complaint petition, an F.I.R. was lodged, in which the victim i.e. husband of the complainant was made accused No. 1 in the F.I.R. It was submitted that in the F.I.R. there is specific allegation against the victim (husband of the complainant) that he along with other had looted fish from the Jalkar of the informant of the case. The occurrence in the said case had taken place on 24.11.2002. It was submitted that since the victim, i.e. husband of the complainant was made accused for committing offence on 24.11.2002, it was beyond the imagination that he was kidnapped on 12.11.2002 as alleged by the complainant. It was submitted that once the victim was kidnapped, there was no possibility for him to commit crime of loot. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon a Judgment of this Court reported in 1994 BBCJ 866 Kashi Nath Singh and Ors. It was submitted that once the victim was kidnapped, there was no possibility for him to commit crime of loot. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon a Judgment of this Court reported in 1994 BBCJ 866 Kashi Nath Singh and Ors. v. Mahendra Singh and Ors., has argued that accused persons were well entitled to produce relevant documents even at the enquiry stage and the learned Magistrate, while ignoring the same, has committed grave error. On this ground alone, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has prayed to quash the order of cognizance. 5. Sri Anil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. On the question of registering F.I.R, in which husband of accused was made accused, it was submitted by Sri Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 2 that the said case was got instituted by accused persons by their own man only with a view to create a defence in the present case. It was submitted by him that the allegation made in the complaint petition was fully corroborated by the enquiry witnesses during the enquiry and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order has rightly taken cognizance of offence. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order of cognizance. 6. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has supported the stand taken by Sri Anil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2. 7. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the contents of the complaint petition, the Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has committed no error, while proceeding with the case. So far as the stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate was required to examine the documents produced by the petitioners even at the time of enquiry is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that such statement is required to be noticed only for its rejection. At the stage of enquiry, no court can allow the accused to adduce evidence, which is to be adduced at the stage of defence. So far as Kashi Nath Singhs case (Supra) is concerned, the fact of that case was not similar to the present case. At the stage of enquiry, no court can allow the accused to adduce evidence, which is to be adduced at the stage of defence. So far as Kashi Nath Singhs case (Supra) is concerned, the fact of that case was not similar to the present case. The case of Kashi Nath Singh (Supra) has got no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The complaint petition itself indicates that the complainant had alleged that the accused persons were very influential and due to that reason on repeated request made by the complainant, the police had not entertained any cases which were intimated by the complainant on number of occasions. Moreover, at the stage of hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that too against the order of cognizance, this Court is not required to examine all the details meticulously. At this stage even strong suspicion is sufficient to reject the petition preferred by the accused/petitioners. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present case and the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 10. Keeping in view the fact that the matter has remained pending for a long period before this Court, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without any delay. 11. It goes without saying that any observation made by this Court may not prejudice the petitioners at any subsequent stage.