IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8937 of 2010 1. Amar Nath Prajapati. 2. Prem Nath Prajapati. Both sons of Shiv Pujan Prajapati, Resident of Moh. Habij Ganj, P.S. Daltanganj, Distt. Palamu (Jharkhand). -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Domani Devi, Daughter of Paran Prajapati, Resident of P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. Kutumba, District Aurangabad (Bihar). --------- Opposite Parties ----------- 2 31.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order taking cognizance dated 26.2.2008 for offence under Sections 323, 379, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners would assail such order only on the ground that the complaint was a malicious one and in fact, no such marriage of the petitioner no.1 with the complainant opposite party no.2 had ever taken place so as to warrant trial of the petitioners. In order to support himself, he also relies on an order of this Court dated 18.2.2010 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.1. Counsel also submits that after this order, the provisional anticipatory bail has also been confirmed. 2 This Court would fail to understand as to how an order of this Court granting interim anticipatory bail or confirming such provisional anticipatory bail could be used for quashing the prosecution itself. The plea that it was a malicious prosecution cannot be gone into at the stage of taking cognizance specially when the allegation of the complainant in paragraph no.2 onwards is quite specific by way of depicting a story of marriage. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Court can also not go into the aspect as to whether the complainant was married to the petitioner no.1 or not because at that stage, only ingredient offence alone has to be seen and satisfaction has to be based on the averments made in the complaint petition or the material collected in course of investigation under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that view of the matter, this Court is not impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the story of the complainant becoming mother of the child of the petitioner no.1 is absurd 3 because the complainant cannot identify the petitioner no.1 even today. The next submission that the petitioner is residing at Delhi and would be subjected to harassment in case the trial would proceed at Aurangabad will also be of little avail, inasmuch as, after an order of cognizance has been passed, the trial has to be proceeded at the place where offence has been committed irrespective of the fact that the petitioner may have been even presently residing on the moon. Finally, this Court would also not find any merit on the submission that the complainant has to first prove the marriage before the cognizance of the offence could have been taken. As a matter of fact, all such pleas that have been raised by the counsel for the petitioners are plea of defence of the petitioners which cannot be even looked into at the stage of taking cognizance. That being so, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)