JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 18.01.2018 by which cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 323, 427 and 452 IPC has been taken and summons has been issued against them. 2. Various grounds have been raised by Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners; one of the grounds is that the complaint has been instituted with mala-fide intentions which is apparent from the fact that the complainant has named one Indira Tiwari who has died long back still she has been made an accused in the complaint case. 3. To support the aforesaid contention, Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners refers to the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witness CW-1 who was examined at the pre-summoning stage. 4. On the question of mala-fide of the complainant suffice would be to record that it is not a ground on which an order taking cognizance can be quashed, if the complaint petition and the evidence of enquiry witnesses disclose a prima-facie case of the offence as alleged [Refer Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prakash Chandra Bose @ Chabi Bose and Another, AIR 1963 SC 1430 ]. Without referring to the facts of the case in detail, suffice would be to record that a bare reading of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses; three witnesses were examined by the complainant, it cannot be said that no offence is made out. 5. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, challenge to the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 780 of 2017 fails. 6. In the result, Cr. M.P. No. 3302 of 2018 is dismissed.