Order : Challenge in this criminal revision application is to the order dated 14.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No.2072 of 2011 arising out of Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No.122 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned counsel representing the State. 3. The prosecution case, relates to demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the demand the informant was subjected to physical and mental torture at the hands of all the petitioners. There is specific allegation against all the petitioners of physical assault. 4. It appears from the record that a petition for discharge under Section 239 of the Code was filed by the petitioners in the court below whereafter considering the documents submitted by the police under Section 173 of the Code including other materials available on record and after hearing both the parties, the learned court below rejected their prayer for discharge by order dated 14.02.2013 holding that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused persons have committed offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It also appears from the record that though the petitioner no.1 Pratap Yadav @ Pratap Pd. Yadav, who is husband of the informant was earlier impleaded as a party to this revision application but subsequently on the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner his name has been deleted. 5. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the court below while considering the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge has not at all considered the prima facie case or grave suspicion against the petitioners and merely relying upon some Paragraphs of the case diary rejected the prayer. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied on a case Preeti Gupta & Anr. Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr.; (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr.; (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. Hence, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the informant seriously contended that the court below after considering the prima facie case and the grave suspicion has passed the order impugned and that the court below has not committed any illegality in refusing to discharge the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel representing the State also opposed the prayer relying upon specific allegations of offences committed by the petitioners. 8. I have gone through the order impugned and after examination of the evidence available on record and on perusal of the order impugned, I find that the court below while rejecting the prayer has considered different Paragraphs of the case diary and the evidence available on record and came to the conclusion that there are sufficient material to frame charge against the petitioners. It further appears from the F.I.R. itself that there is specific allegation of assault against all the petitioners. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in this case as the close relations of the husband of the victim informant are all living in the same house and in the same city and no evidence has been brought on record that any of them are living in another city. 9. In the case Rajiv Thapar & Ors. V. Madhu Lal Kapoor; (2013) 3 SCC 330 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the discharge petition, held in Paragraph28 as follows: “This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations leveled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has leveled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) leveled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations leveled, trial must be held”. 10. In view of the ratio decided in the above case and the evidences and materials available on record, if taken on its face value, clearly speaks of strong prima facie case or grave suspicion against the petitioners. Hence, I find that the court below has rightly held that there are sufficient evidence to frame charge against the petitioners. The revision application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 11. However, any finding recorded by this court will not prejudice the case of the petitioners in court below.