Bhagwati Prasad, J. - (1.) In this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while .taking cognizance, learned Magistrate has not considered the entire record. Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that police investigation report which is termed as final report, has not been considered by the learned Magistrate while making the order of taking cognizance.
(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent urges that order of the learned Magistrate is clear. The learned Magistrate in his order clearly mentioned that before proceeding for enquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code the police has filed final report. Further, it has been mentioned that after earlier orders having been passed by the Magistrate, the Superior Court considered the case and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. This shows that learned Magistrate was conscious of the proceedings in the case and he is taking serious note of every steps of the case. Learned Magistrate recorded in his order that he has carefully considered the record of the case.
(3.) The assertion of the learned counsel for the respondent is that observation of the learned Magistrate that he has looked into the record carefully is not an empty formality because referring to the FIR, learned Magistrate has stated that accused no. 3 Seep s/o Mahaveer who is referred in the FIR has been left out by learned Magistrate from taking cognizance. This is conscious application of mind on the material placed on record. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to discuss the evidence produced on record and has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material available on record to form an opinion under Section 204 Cr.RC. to issue process.;