JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar, J .-Heard Shri B.J. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Shyam Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri Bhubneshwar Prasad, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2/informant of the case. 2. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have prayed for quashing of an order dated 24.9.2004 in Trial No. 1260 of 2004 arising out of Phulwarisharn P.S. Case No.388 of 2001, whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498A, 494 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2 had initially filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 1660(c) of 2001 against the accused persons including the petitioners on an allegation of committing offences under Sections 307, 323, 379 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint petition was subsequently referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after registering F.I.R., police conducted investigation and thereafter, submitted charge-sheet. On submission of charge-sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the material on record including the case diary, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 24.9.2004, took cognizance of offences under Sections 498A, 494 and 379 of the Indian Penal code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against all the charge-sheeted accused persons. 4. Shri B.J. Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has argued that petitioner No. 1 is an old man and he is father-in-law of opposite party No.2. It was submitted that he has not played any role for being implication in the present case. Similarly, it has been submitted that two brothers i.e. petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had already separated with his younger brother long back and as such neither petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 nor their wives i.e. petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were involved in the present case. He has also argued that partition in between the parties had taken place long back. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also tried to impress upon the Court by showing Annexure-2 that partition in between the parties had taken place on 8.5.2001. 2 and 3 nor their wives i.e. petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were involved in the present case. He has also argued that partition in between the parties had taken place long back. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also tried to impress upon the Court by showing Annexure-2 that partition in between the parties had taken place on 8.5.2001. He has brought on record a copy of deed of family partition as Annexure-2 to the present petition. He further submits that, time without number, it has been held that all the family members may not be implicated for offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a single Bench order passed by this Court reported in 2006 (4) East Cr C 15 (Pat) : 2006 (3) PLJR 100, Asha Devi & others v. State of Bihar & others. On aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to set aside the order of cognizance. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. First of all, it has been submitted that purported deed of partition i.e. Annexure-2 to the petition shows that it was prepared on 8.5.2001. He submits that this shows prior to this partition, all the petitioners were joint. He further submits that in complaint petition itself, particularly in paragraphs 4 and 10 of the complaint petition, which is the basis of the F.I.R., categorically discloses offences committed by all the accused persons including the petitioners. After lodging F.I.R., the police thoroughly investigated the case and only after the case was found true, police submitted charge-sheet and thereafter, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences which requires no interference. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly the F.I.R. which categorically discloses commission of offences against accused persons including the petitioners. Moreover, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to go in detail and record finding on the merit of the case, otherwise, the case of either party may be prejudiced. So far as Asha Devi's case (supra), which was referred by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the fact of the case was entirely different. Moreover, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to go in detail and record finding on the merit of the case, otherwise, the case of either party may be prejudiced. So far as Asha Devi's case (supra), which was referred by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the fact of the case was entirely different. In the said case, after filing of the first complaint, compromise had arrived and thereafter, accused persons were acquitted and immediately within two and half months, second complaint was filed and this Court, in respect of some of the accused persons, had quashed the order of cognizance. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the present case, I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance. Moreover, at initial stage of cognizance, it is not required for this Court to deal with the merit of the case. Only requirement is to see as to whether in the order of cognizance, there is any defect or not. 8. I have perused the impugned order. I do not find any defect. The petition stands dismissed. 9. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 19.1.2009 stands automatically vacated. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below forthwith. Petition dismissed.