IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42575 of 2006 1.SURENDRA THAKUR S/o of Sri Ganesh Thakur 2.Meera Devi W/o Surendra Thakur 3.Rajiv Thakur S/o Rajiv Kr. Thakur 4.Sanjay Thakur S/o Ganesh Thakur 5.Ganesh Thakur S/o late Ram Lakshan Thakur. All are residents of village-Mayeel, P.S.-Bidupur, Dist.-Vaishali. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Rubi Kumari Divorcee wife of Rajiv Thakur D/o Krishna Deo Jha, resident of New Professor Colony, Ward No.9, P.S.-Nagar(Begusarai), Dist.-Begusarai. ----------- 8. 16.3.2010. Five petitioners, who are accused in Nagar P.S. Case No.321 of 2002, G.R. No.2362 of 2002 for the offences under sections 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by filing the present petition, have challenged the order of cognizance dated 18.7.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, whereby the cognizance of the offences against petitioner nos.1 and 2 was taken. Subsequently by order dated 17.4.2006 in the said case cognizance of the offences was taken against petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5. In the present case both the orders are under challenge. It appears that opposite party no.2, Rubi Kumari, had earlier filed a complaint case which was transferred vide Complaint Case No.1238C of 2002. The Complaint Case was transferred for its investigation by the police under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter first information report was registered. After registering first information report, police investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet. After submission of the charge sheet by the impugned order, the court 2 below after examining the materials available on record had taken cognizance of the offences as mentioned above. The petitioners, oblivious with the fact that there were several stages under the Cr.P.C. to raise their grievance, directly rushed to this court invoking its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of the rare cases. I do not see any material on record warranting this court to exercise its exceptional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)