JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners either to press this application or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, learned Counsel for the State, Smt. Indu Kumari Srivastava, A.P.P. is present. 2. In this case by an order dated 11.3.1999 while admitting the petition for final hearing, this Court had passed an order that further proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 145C of 1998 in the court below shall remain stayed. The order of stay is still continuing. 3. While invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the two petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution as well as the order dated 13.8.1998, whereby Sri B.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lakhisarai had taken cognizance of offence under Section 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. l45C of 1998. 4. It appears that in the petition a plea has been taken by the petitioners that it was a forced marriage. Petitioner No. 1, who has been alleged as husband of Opp.Party No. 2, never treated the complainant as his wife. It was also alleged that by putting force the marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solemnized with Opp.Party No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is the elder brother of petitioner No. 1. 5. In the petition, another plea has also been taken that on the date of alleged occurrence, he was aged about only 18 years. 6. I have perused the materials available on record and also examined the impugned order, whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence. 7. In the complaint petition, there is averment that both the petitioners had tortured Opp.Party No. 2 for the purposes of extracting money in the name of dowry. 8. The order impugned shows that the learned Magistrate had examined the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on S.A. and also the evidence of the witnesses, who were examined at the enquiry stage. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the order of cognizance dated 13.8.1998. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay dated 11.9.1999 stands automatically vacated. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.