JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.240 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.901 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance dated 24.03.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 120B, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with each other as well as in furtherance of the common intention with each other being the relatives of the husband of the informant harassed the informant with a view to coerce her and her father to meet the unlawful dowry demand and together caused hurt to her, wrongfully restrained her, committed criminal intimidation and intentionally insulted her in such a manner to provoke her to commit breach of peace or commit any other offence. Further, there is allegations against the petitioners of demanding dowry from the informant. Police after investigation of the case and after recording the statement of the witnesses and collecting other materials, found the allegations to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. On the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences in respect of which the charge sheet has been submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others, MANU/SC/0592/2010 and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that it is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations and at the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others, MANU/SC/0163/2022 wherein in the facts of that case where there was a second F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint that all the accused persons harassed the complainant mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy, in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the F.I.R. of that case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that the allegations against the petitioners are false and the petitioner no.1 is an old and ailing lady and some of the petitioners are living in far away places and they have been falsely implicated in this case, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the undisputed fact remains that the police during the investigation of the case found that each of the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of their common intention were harassing the informant with a view to coerce the informant and her father to meet their unlawful demand of dowry and they used to abuse and assault the informant and their willful conduct was of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury and danger to life, limb and health of the informant both mentally and physically and the petitioners were demanding dowry as well and after finding such allegations to be true upon collection of evidence including the statement of the witnesses and other materials, charge sheet has been submitted and on the basis of the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences and this case is at nascent stage where the charge is yet to be framed. 8. 8. So far as the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra), the learned Spl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also taken note of the rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment and observed that the same is a matter of serious concern. It is next submitted that since, in this case, police after investigation of the case found the allegations against the petitioners to be true and it is not even the case of the petitioners that police has conducted any partition investigation or there is any error in the investigation committed by the police and the only contention of the petitioners is that the allegations against them are false; the same again at the most be the defence of the petitioners which can be considered only at the full dress trial of the case. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed facts remains that the police during the investigation of the case found each of the allegations in respect of each of the offences, in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance of each of the offences has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad basing upon the charge sheet is made out. There is no allegation that any error was committed by the police in the investigation of the case or there was any shortcoming in the investigation of the case. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of taking cognizance and issue of process, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments in the defence of the accused persons nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the prosecution. 10. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of taking cognizance and issue of process, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments in the defence of the accused persons nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the prosecution. 10. In view of the undisputed fact that the police during the investigation of the case found allegations against each of the petitioners to be true in respect of the offences for which charge sheet has been submitted against them, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra), moreover, because unlike that case, there is no second FIR involved in this case. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at this nascent stage. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.