IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4470 of 2010 PARMANAND PASWAN, son of Late Ramadhar Paswan, resident of village Abgil Rampur, P. S. Medni Chowki, District- Lakhisarai. … Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Poonam Kumari, wife of Guddu Singh @ Uday Shanker Singh, resident of village- Hathiyawan, P. S. Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura. .. Opp. Parties. ----------- 2. 04.02.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The impugned order taking cognizance dated 14.1.2009 for offence under Section 409 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed by the petitioner taking a plea that the complainant out of enmity, had filed the case inasmuch one day earlier to the occurrence, the petitioner had filed a case against her husband in which anticipatory bail was refused upto this High Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that District Administration including the Collector and the Deputy Development Commissioner had already looked into the allegations who had no merit in the case of complainant. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that this infact is out and out case of false implication of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, all these plea are 2 very good defence of the petitioner but then for the purpose of quashing the order taking cognizance this Court has to go into the only substance of allegation made in the complaint case as also the statement of witnesses who were examined in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This court would find that the order taking cognizance was also assailed by the petitioner before the revisional court and the revisional court after detailed discussion has found the allegations to be made out. The finding of the revisional court is quoted hereinbelow:- “From perusal of the allegations made in complaint, statement of Complainant on S. A. and witnesses examined during course of enquiry u/Ss. 202 Cr.P.C. lend support to the case of the complainant. It may not be out of place to mention that it is settled that the scope of enquiry u/S. 202 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited to the ascertainment of the truth of falsehood of the allegation made in the complaint and to find out from the materials placed before the court whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out and for deciding a question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. As such the Magistrate has to see as to whether there is a prima facie evidence of a criminal offence or sufficient grounds for proceeding. “ sufficient grounds” do not mean sufficient grounds for conviction but 3 such evidence as would be sufficient to put the accused on trial and not to see whether it would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. In this view of the matter I find no interference in the impugned order.” This Court is in full agreement with the aforesaid findings and reasonings of the revisional court inasmuch as the scope of interference at the stage of taking cognizance is very limited and at least the defence of the petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)