Judgment SOBHAGMAL JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. is directed against the order Dated Feb. 18, 1988, of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, quashing the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First class, Hanumangarh, dated March 24,1987, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence under sections 147, 447, 427 and 504 I. P. C. against the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 6. ( 2 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has quashed the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that cognizance having been taken by the Magistrate-against the accused challaned by the police, it was not open to him, subsequently, to take cognizance against other accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on March 24, 1987, was not legally permissible. The Additional Sessions Judge has in this connection relied on a Judgment of this Court in Bagh Singh v. State. ( 3 ) IN my opinion, Bagh Singhs case (supra) is not applicable to the present case. More appropriately the case will be governed by Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala and others, decided by the Supreme Court and Udai Singh v. State, decided by this Court. ( 4 ) IN Bagh Singhs case, there was no protest petition having been filed by the complainant and cognizance against the accused challaned by the police had been taken after application of mind to the entire case. In Udai Singhs case (supra), this Court has said: 9 It may be stated that taking cognizance means nothing more than taking judicial notice of the offence. It does not involve any formal notion or needed section of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. It is also very well settled that taking cognizance means cognizance of offence and not offenders. Once the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police, some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceedings initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceedings initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence. The view taken in Udai Singhs case (supra) finds full support from the observations of the Supreme Court in Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwal. In Harerams case the facts in short were that in the report made to the police, several persons were named as accused. On completion of investigation the police filed a charge-sheet against some of the accused and gave final against others. The complainant in that case filed a complaint reiterating allegations against these accused also against whom the police had given a final report. The Magistrate after going through the statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. directed issuance of process against these left out accused also. A learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the process. On appeal, by Special have, the Supreme Court, after referring to the earlier judgments in Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar and Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivlingappa5 and Chandradeo Singh v. Prokar Chandra Bose, held7. From the foregoing it is crystal clear that under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence made out in the police report or in the complaint and there is nothing like taking cognizance of the offenders at that stage. As to who actually the offenders involved in the case might have been has to be decided by the Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence. 8 In the instant case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the police report, and after taking cognizance of the offence and perusal of the record he appears to have satisfied himself that there were prima facie grounds for issuing process against the respondents. In so doing the Magistrate did not in our Judgment exceed the power vested in him under law. ( 5 ) IN the present case, the order sheet dated Jan. 20, 1987, reveals that on this date the learned Magistrate had directed that the case be registered and the copies of the challan papers be furnished to the counsel for the accused. The accused were directed to be released on bail. True, the accused referred to in this order meant the five accused against whom the police had filed the challan. The accused were directed to be released on bail. True, the accused referred to in this order meant the five accused against whom the police had filed the challan. There was, however, a protest petition also before the learned Magistrate which was not decided on this date but was adjourned for arguments on the subsequent date. In the protest petition the complainant wanted that cognizance be also taken against the non-petitioners. The order sheet dated Jan. 20, 1987, shows that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to the question whether cognizance against the non-petitioners should be taken or not. The case qua these accused was considered by the Magistrate on March 24, 1987, and cognizance against them was taken on this date. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on March 24, 1987, was not in excess of the power vested in him. Rather, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, is difficult to be sustained. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. is allowed, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, dated Feb. 18, 1989, is set aside and the order passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, dated March 24, 1987, is restored. Petition allowed.