IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1405 of 2009 1. Shyam Sunder Sharma son of Late Hira Lal Sharma. 2. Inder Lal Sharma son of Shyam Sunder Sharma. 3. Reena Sharma @ Meena Sharma wife of Inder Sharma. 4. Deepak Sharma son of Shyam Sunder Sharma. All r/o of back of plice line, P.S.-Daltanganj, District- Palamu (Jharkhand). ….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Chanchala Mate @ Tinki W/o Manoj Sharma D/o Shri Suresh Chandra Mate, Q/o Makhania Kuan-Purvi Gali, Ashok Rajpath, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna. …Opposite Parties. 3 19.10.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 04.06.2009 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1061 (C) of 2003 by which the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 245 of the Cr. P.C. has been dismissed. The complainant Chanchala Mate @ Tinki , Opposite Party No. 2, filed Complaint Case No. 1061(C) of 2003 alleging therein that she was married to Manoj Kumar Sharma on 30.11.2001 at Patna. She was taken to his ancestral house at Daltanganj on 01.12.2001 where she led conjugal life with her husband. After a few days she was sent to her father’s house. On 08.12.2001 again she was taken by her husband to Daltanganj and again to his quarter at Ramgarh where her husband tortured her. She was sent to his ancestral house, where she was also tortured by the accused and they tried to kill her. Later on her abortion was also caused. 2 Further it has been alleged that in January, 2002 she was taken to the factory quarter at Ramgarh. It has been further alleged that the demand of dowry was made by her husband and his relatives. It has been further alleged that her husband has illicit relation with another lady. The ornaments and other items have been snatched and have been kept by her husband and his relatives. She came to Patna. In October 2002 she tried to contact the accused but they refused to take her Bidai without meeting their demands. Thereafter, she filed the Complaint Case No. 1061 (C) of 2003. After inquiry cognizance was taken against the accused. A petition dated 08.09.2008 was filed on behalf of the accused petitioners under Section 245 Cr. P.C. making prayer to discharge them which has been rejected by the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the other materials on the record, it appears that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and has found a prima facie evidence on the record to proceed against the accused petitioners. In view of the fact that there is material to proceed against them and there is also material to frame charge against the petitioners, the petition has been dismissed. 3 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any merit in this case. This revision application is dismissed. Kamlesh (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)