- (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated May 26,1989, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners.
(2.) CHANDU Mal filed a complaint against Banshi Lal, Ram Chandra and Smt. Kali under Section 498 I. P. C. in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, on the allegations made in the complaint. The learned Magistrate sent this complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Suratgarh, for investigation. The police, after necessary investigation, submitted the Final Report in the matter. After receipt of the Final Report, notice was given to the complainant and the complainant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate thereafter, after considering the Final Report and the evidence collected by the police during investigation, took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 498 IPC. and issued processes. Dissatisfied with the order dated February 5, 1988, passed by the learned Magistrate, taking cognizance against the petitioners, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh, who by his order dated May, 26, 1989, rejected the revision-petition filed by the petitioners. It is against this order that the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 and perused the order passed by the learned lower Court as well as the record of the case. After considering the whole materials on record, I am of the opinion that no illegallity has been committed by the learned Court below in taking the cognizance against the petitioners. At the time of taking the cognizance, the Court has only to see that whether from the evidence of the witnesses and the documents on record, any prima facie case to proceed-with against the accused is made-out. If there is a prima facie evidence to proceed with against the accused then the Court can take cognizance. If the accused, against whom the cognizance has been taken, has any valid defence available to him, then that can be decided by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. As the order taking cognizance is an ex-parte order passed by the learned Magistrate, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the accused therefore, if the accused have any grievance against the order passed by the learned Magistrate then they can agitate the grievances and raise objections before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate will consider all those objections raised by the accused. If after hearing the arguments the Court is of the opinion that no case is made-out then it may discharge the accused-petitioners. But the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be interferred-with or quashed by this Court under its inherent powers at this stage. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioners, has got no force and is hereby dismissed. .;