JUDGMENT 1. - The parties agree that the revision may be finally disposed of at this stage. It is, therefore, so disposed of. 2. The 13 petitioners have filed this revision against the order of the learned Judl. Magistrate, Nagaur, dated 20-3-84 by which cognizance of offences u/ss 336, 435 and 148 IPC has been taken against them. 3. On 2-1-79 Hanuman Puri filed a complaint against the 13 petitioners in the Court of the learned Mansif & Judi. Magistrate, Nagaur for offences under sections 307, 336, 435, 147 and 148 IPC. It was stated in the complaint that the accused-petitioners were on inimical terms with the complainant as the complainant had asked the accused Pheph Singh to pay compensation to one Arjunpuri on account of the injury caused to him in an accident with Pheph Singh's tractor and on account of this, they wanted to kill the complainant. It was further alleged that on 6-11-78 at about 9. p.m. when the complainant was at his house, all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons came there and called him out. When the complainant came out, Pheph Singh fired a gun at him but it missed. Pheph Singh ran back into the house. The accused Umedpuri thereupon set fire to the thorn fencing of the house of the complainant Umedpuri brother of the complainant. In the mean time on hearing the report of the gun, some witnesses had already arrived at the spot and the accused persons left the place. It was further alleged in the complaint that the report was made to the police of this incident whereupon a case was registered under number 101 dated 7-11-76 (must be 78) but the police joined hands with the accused persons and filed a final report and, therefore, the aforesaid complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate proceeded to record the statements of the complainant and his witnesses u/ss 200 and 202 Cr. PC and by his order dated 17-7-79 dismissed the complaint. It may be noted here that the order sheets of the file of the learned Magistrate do not appear in a chronological order. After the order dated 7-6-79 adjourning the case for 23-6-79, the next order sheet is dated 20-9-82. What happened in between is not clear from the order sheets. However, the record shows that one witness was examined on 23-6-79 and another on 9-7-79. After the order dated 7-6-79 adjourning the case for 23-6-79, the next order sheet is dated 20-9-82. What happened in between is not clear from the order sheets. However, the record shows that one witness was examined on 23-6-79 and another on 9-7-79. It was thereafter that the order dated 17-7-79 was passed. 4. Aggrieved of the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant filed a revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur was of the view that the trial court need not have critically examined the evidence at the stage of taking cognizance but should have only looked into the matter to find out whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding further with the case. He further observed that the learned counsel for the complainant also wanted to produce some more evidence. It was on these grounds that the order was set aside and the matter was sent back to the learned Magistrate with a direction to record further evidence of the parties and then to decide the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter the complainant examined one more witness on 4-1-84 after many adjournments and then the learned Magistrate by his order dated 20-3-84 took cognizance of the offences as stated above. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed by the accused persons before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate has mechanically proceeded to take cognizance of the offences without applying his mind to the material on record and without considering the report which had been filed by the police in this case. He has also moved an application to the effect that the accused party has also filed a FIR to the police in connection with this incident and on that a case for offences u/ss 147 and 323 IPC was registered against the complainant Hanumanpuri and five other persons and in that case after trial, the accused persons were convicted u/s 147 IPC but were released on probation by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 27-5-83 and the appeal of the accused persons in that case was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur on 20-2-84. Sessions Judge, Nagaur on 20-2-84. In that case, the prosecution story was that the accused persons were in the habit of letting in their cattle in the fields of Umed Singh etc. and on 6-11-78 at about 9 p.m. the buffalo and goats of the accused party had been put in their field and when the first informant Umed Singh was trying to take these cattle etc. to the cattle pond, the accused persons attacked him after forming an unlawful assembly and gave beating with fists and slaps but he was rescused by Mohan Singh, Manohar Singh etc. At the trial of that case, the accused Hanumanpuri and others of that case had put up the theory that as Hanumanpuri had filed a complaint against the present petitioners, that they tried to kill him and to set fire to the thorn fencing of Umedpuri, this false case has been brought forward against them. The trial court considered this aspect of the matter and found that the case forward by Umed Singh was correct and the story put forward in defence by Hanumanpuri and others could not be relied upon and since that judgment has now become final the present complaint the present petitioners looses all its significance and, therefore, he prays that the proceedings against the present petitioners on that complaint would not only be meaningless but would result into unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. He has placed on record the order of the learned Munsif & Judi. Magistrate. Nagaur, dated 27-5-83 convicting Hanumanpuri and others u/s 147 IPC and the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur dismissing their appeal. The learned counsel for the complainant Hanumanpuri has not been able to challenge the fact that the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur, in the appeal filed by Hanumanpuri and others has become final. He, however, urged that there was material on record before the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences Os 336, 435 and 148 IPC against the present petitioners, therefore, this Court should not interfere with that order. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. He, however, urged that there was material on record before the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences Os 336, 435 and 148 IPC against the present petitioners, therefore, this Court should not interfere with that order. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. It is true that ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an order taking cognizance of an offence against the accused persons unless it finds that there was absolutely no material before the trial court to justify the taking of cognizance or that the proceedings would result into miscarriage of justice or unnecessary harassment to the accused. In the present case,I am clearly of the opinion that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence against the present petitioners, deserves to he set aside. In the first place, it may be stated that out of the incident arising at about 9 p.m. on 6-11-78, two cross cases have been filed, one by Umed Singh resulting into the conviction of the present complainant Hanumanpuri & his associates and the other was filed by Hanumanpuri against the present petitioners. The theory put forward by Hanumanpuri and others in their defence in the case registered on the complaint of Umedsingh has already been examined by the two courts below, namely, the learned Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Nagaur as also the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur and it has been found that that theory is not correct and acceptable. As a matter of fact earlier to this also, the police had already investigated case on the report filed by Hanumanpuri and it had filed the final report before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had also made an enquiry on the basis of the complaint filed by Hanumanpuri and had come to the conclusion that no case was made out against these petitioners. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at in that case registered on the report of Umedsingh regarding the defence theory in that case stands further reinforced by the earlier order of the learned Magistrate. It is true that the order had been set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that at that stage, the learned Magistrate was not required to critically examine the evidence produced by the complainant. It is true that the order had been set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that at that stage, the learned Magistrate was not required to critically examine the evidence produced by the complainant. All the same when it is locked at from the angle as aforesaid in view of the decision in the case on Umedsingh's report it does appear that the learned Magistrate was fully justified in holding that no case had been made out against the present petitioners (leaving aside the technicality on which that judgment was set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge). It is also pertinent to note that on the face of the record also, the theory put forward by the complainant Hanumanpuri appears to be improbable and unbelievable inasmuch as though it is alleged that 13 persons armed with deadly weapons like guns, swords etc. had come to the house of Hanumanpuri at about 9 p.m. in the night and had called out Hanumanpuri but he escaped unhurt. The main fire is alleged to have missed and the other persons who were armed with other deadly weapons remained quiet. If the accused persons had thus gone armed with deadly weapons with the intention of killing him, he would not have thus escaped. The learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences u/ss 336, 435 and 148 IPC has found that no case u/s 307 IPC was made out had thus partly disbelieved the complainant. Not only this, in the complaint it is alleged that when the effort of the accused persons thus failed and they were disappointed, only Umedpuri while going back from the house of the complainant, set fire to this thorn fencing. It is not alleged that other 12 accused persons had any common intention with him to set fire to his thorn fencing. The FIR of this case is alleged to have been lodged at 8 a. m. on 7-11-78 at police station Jayal after Umedsingh had already lodged a report about this incident at 4 a.m. on that very day. All these facts go to show that as a matter of fact this complaint by Hanumanpuri was only a counter blast to the report filed by Umedsingh. 8. All these facts go to show that as a matter of fact this complaint by Hanumanpuri was only a counter blast to the report filed by Umedsingh. 8. Again according to the complainant Hanumanpuri these accused persons had come to his house to teach him a lesson but when he escaped; they did not cause any harm to his house but later on alleged to have set fire to the thorn fencing of the house of his brother. 9. Looking to all these circumstances, I am clearly of the opinion that the further proceedings on the basis of this complaint would only result into unnecessary harassment to the present petitioner an would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and in these circumstances, I am of the view that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the present petitioners deserves to be quashed. 10. I, therefore, allow this revision and set aside the order of the learned Munsif & Judl. Magistrate Nagaur, dated 20-3-84 taking cognizance of the offence u/ss 336, 435 and 148 IPC against the petitioners.Revision allowed. *******