1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

2. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the complainants husband. Petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are the younger brother and married sister of the complainants husband respectively.

3. The complainant, namely, Swati Kumari was married with Shailendra Kumar the son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Due to some matrimonial incompatibility she had filed complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah. In which the complainant and other witnesses were examined on S.A. and the Court vide order dated 23.6.2007 had directed for issuance of processes upon the accused persons. The petitioners are aggrieved from that order.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have no concern with the family affairs of complainant and her husband. The complainant after marriage started living separately in Jamnagar in the district of Jalgaon (Maharastra) where her husband was working in the State Bank of India. The petitioner no. 4 is the married sister of the complainants husband and the petitioner no. 3 is the younger brother of complainants husband. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 3 is working in bank from before the marriage of the complainant and he is having separate residence before the occurrence. The parents of the complainants husband are also living separately and they have no concern at all with the allegation of demand or torture. The petitioners could not be the benefited persons if the demand of car as alleged is fulfilled. Petitioner no. 4 lives in separate village and she is not going to get any thing from whatever demand is made by the complainants husband. It is also submitted that it has become practice that all the inlaws are roped in for the offences under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code only for the purpose of putting pressure so that the entire family members may succumb to the greed of the complainant.

5. Complainant Swati Kumari was married on 12.5.2003 with Shailendra Kumar son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 . She went with her husband at his place of working after ten days of the marriage. She returned to residence of her husband at Patna on 6.11.2003 and it is alleged that her husband started putting pressure upon her for demanding a Maruti Car from her parents. She was unable to put pressure upon her parents because her parents have already spent a lot and on account of not getting the maruti car all the accused persons started torturing her in various ways. She had to file a complaint which has resulted into initiation of instant proceeding.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the order impugned is bad in view of the decisions reported in 2007 (4) PLJR. 271 (Ashok Kumar Chaurasia & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Anr.) and 2009 (2) PLJR 310 (Ranjeet Srivastava & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Anr.) It is also submitted that in view of the similar facts and circumstances the petitioners are entitled to get the relief as granted to the petitioners of aforementioned cases. The allegation of torture has been levelled only against the husband.

7. At the stage of taking cognizance the Court is not required to go into the broader aspects of the defence. If the complainant petition is filed and statements of the witnesses are recorded and those narrations make out a case upon which the Court should proceed then only option open to the Court is that it should proceed with the case. At the stage of taking cognizance the Court is not required to decide as to whether there were sufficient materials which should warrant conviction or not. At the stage of taking cognizance it is to be seen as to whether the materials are enough or not on which the Court should proceed. At this stage it is not required for thecourt to consider as to whether the persons are separate in residenc