examination is not necessary by him if a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties has made the complaint or the court has instituted such complaint. Second situation is that if C.J.M. or any Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class empowered in this behalf by C.J.M. as to taking cognizance makes over the case for enquiry and trial to another Magistrate under Section 192 Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 Cr.P.C. after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the later Magistrate need not re-examine those witnesses. In the present case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken only the cognizance of the offence and made over the case to another Magistrate for enquiry and trial and the examination of the complainant and the witnesses are to be done by the Magistrate who has received the complaint after making it over. In the cognizance order Section 498A is not mentioned due to inadvertence moreover it does not prejudice the case of the defence in any manner. The allegation levelled in the complaint prima facie discloses the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act only against the husband-petitioner no.1 but not against the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4, who are father and brothers of petitioner no.1, the husband lives in Delhi and petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 live at native village and they are not concerned with
