JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. G. A. for the State. 2. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order of learned Judl. Magistrate Kama dated 22.8 1985 by which he ordered to take cognizance against the petitioners. 3. Shodan filed a complaint under sections 147, 323, 379, 343 and 501 I.P.C against Mahmood, Noor Mohd, Israil Mahmood, Ishaq and Noor. The learned Magistrate, forwarded the complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the police station Pahari On this complaint the police registered the case and investigated the matter. After completing the investigation the S.H.O. did not find any case against the petitioners Israil and Ishaq. He however, found that a case under sections 325, 323, 341 and 504 I.P.C. is prima facie made out against the other persons, so he submitted the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kama. The learned Magistrate, perused the papers of charge-sheets & also perused the application of the complainant Shodan and found the case against the petitioners is Israil and Ishaq made out from the investigation papers and also found that a case under sections 394, 395, 397, 341 147, & 149 is made out and accordingly vide his order dated 22.8 85 took cognizance against the other accused persons including the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by this order of taking cognisance the petitioners have come to this court. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Shodan. complainant who has mentioned in the complaint that these accused persons came there but according to his complaint he was given beating by Mahmood and Mahmood also took Rs. 1,000/- from his pocket. Similar is the statement of Shodan under section 161 Cr.P.C. It was argued that Shodan, has not deposed that the petitioners inflicted any blow to him or that they had taken away the money from his pocket. Apart from this the Investigating Officer, recorded the statements of Abdul Rahman and Usman under section 161 Cr.P.C. Both these witnesses have stated that at the time of incident petitioners Israil and Ishaq were not present. Usman is the real brother of Shodan. so there is no corroborated evidence to the statement of Shodan. On the contrary the witnesses have stated that the petitioners were not present when the incident took place. 5. In reply to this argument the learned Addl. Govt. Usman is the real brother of Shodan. so there is no corroborated evidence to the statement of Shodan. On the contrary the witnesses have stated that the petitioners were not present when the incident took place. 5. In reply to this argument the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, argued that in the complaint it has been mentioned that the petitioners Israil and Ishaq were with other accused persons. There is no specific allegation against them but they were present when the incident took place. Hence there is prima facie to have cognizance against these petitioners. 6. I have considered both the arguments and perused the statements of Shodan, Abdul Rahman and Usman. The police did not find any case against the petitioners. The police even did not find the case under section 379 I.P.C. against other persons. The statements of the witnesses also show that no case is made out against the petitioners Therefore, learned Magistrate has committed gross error in taking cognizance against the petitioners. Not appreciating the statements of the witnesses properly and taking cognizance against the petitioners on no evidence, is certainly an abuse of the process of the court. If any prima facie evidence is on the record against the petitioners then the learned Magistrate it was justified to take cognizance against the petitioners. Therefore, taking cognizance against them is incorrect. 7. Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is accepted. The order of taking cognizance against the petitioners Israil and Ishaq is quashed and the proceedings against them are also quashed. Further taking cognizance under section 147, 149, 394, 395, 397 I.P.C. is also quashed. The case will proceed against Nooro, Mahmood, Noor Mohd. and Mahmood under sections 325, 323, 341 and 504 I.P.C.Application allowed. *******