IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2144 of 2008 1. MD.MOHIUDDIN @ MOHIMUDDIN @ MAHIMUDDIN, SON OF LATE MD. SUBHAN 2. MOSMAT KULSUM WIFE OF LATE MD. SUBHAN 3. MD.AZIM @ AZIM, SON OF LATGE MD. SUBHAN 4. MD. SAMIM, SON OF LATE MD. SUBHAN 5. MD. MINTU @ TETIYA SON OF LATE MD.SUBHAN 6. MD. AMIRUDDIN SON OF MD. AZIM @ AZIM 7. KAISHAR KHATOON @ KISWAR BANO WIFE OF MD.AZIM@ AZIM ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-SHARIFGANJ, P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT-KATIHAR ------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ROSHAN KHATOON DAUGHTER OF MD. SAUDEN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SHARIFGANJ, P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT-KATIHAR ------------ OPP.PARTIES ----------- 3 16-12-2008 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Alok, the learned counsel for the petitioners as also Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners who have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.1024 of 2006 and against whom cognizance has been taken have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 4.11.2006, whereby cognizance under Section 498 A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P.Act has been taken against the petitioners by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to several documents appended with the application as Annexures. He has also tried to prove that the complainant is not the legally wedded wife of petitioner no.1 by referring those documents and ordersheet. - 2 - Unfortunately, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to appreciate that submissions that he has advanced are either his defence or alibi which cannot be looked in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The fact remains that the complainant on S.A. and her witnesses have supported the complainant’s case at the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate on the materials available from the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has come to a conclusion that a prima facie has been made out against these petitioners to proceed with them. It goes without saying that while examining the evidence which comes from the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate cannot look beyond what has come from the enquiry. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners reliance upon Annexures 2 and 3 and the ordersheet are of no help to him. I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-