IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19473 of 2008 1. SHIPRA SINGH 2. VISHAL SHANKAR ----PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRANITA SINHA ---OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 03 20.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners assail the order taking cognizance. It is submitted that no specific role has been assigned against the petitioners who are married sister-in-law and brother- in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel further tried to convince this Court that dispute in fact relate to the fact that boy was married and/or entangled with a lady since before her marriage. It is seen from the record that he was working in Singapur. It is the submission of the counsel that their implications are malicious and malafide. On the contrary learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant drew attention of court to the various paragraphs of the F.I.R. in order to show that there is allegation with regard to demand of dowry against the petitioners and followed by mental torture. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is only to be satisfied prima facie that there is/are a sufficient material on record to proceed with the case. Considering the jurisdiction invoked by learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the order impugned meriting 2 interference. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to agitate their grievance(s) at the appropriate stage of the trial. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)