JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated January 30, 1991 of Munsiff Magistrate, Chomu by which he took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under sections- 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. The petitioner is an advocate, who was also appointed as Oath Commissioner, City Courts, Jaipur.The facts of the case are that the complainant Madan Copal filed a complaint in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur against six persons, including the petitioner. In the said complaint, it was given out that he was adopted son of late Sh. Hari Narayan Kanoongo, who died in the year 1983. It was also stated that Sh. Hari Narayan Kanoongo had executed a will in his favour on 14.10.1978 in relation to his moveable and immoveable properties. According to the complaint, the accused-persons entered into a conspiracy and a forged gift deed was executed in favour of the accused Smt. Radha Devi, who is the daughter of the deceased-Hari Narayan Kanoongo. This gift deed is dated June 12, 1983 and it was got attested by the Oath Commissioner Sh. Ghisa Lal Saini-petitioner on 13.6.1986. The petitioner has also given certain facts to show that the said gift deed is a forged document. It was also given out that a copy of the said gift deed was produced in the Revenue Courts, but the original document of the gift deed was not produced in any of those cases.This complaint was filed on 2.6.1987, which was forwarded to S.H.O. P.S. Sadar, Jaipur under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate where crime No. 57/87 was registered under sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B I.P.C.It appears that the police submitted final report twice, but again the investigation was re-opened and lastly the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-Kailash Narayan S/o Sriniwas, Rajendra Kumar S/o Sriniwas and the petitioner-Ghisa Lal Saini for the offences under sections- 420, 467, 468/ 120-B, 474 and 471 I.P.C. The accused-Smt. Radha Devi had died before the chargesheet was filed and for the remaining two accused persons the police opined that no case was made out against them.The learned Magistrate, on submission of the charge-sheet, took cognizance vide his order dated Jan. 30, 1991, which is under challenge before me. 30, 1991, which is under challenge before me. The said order is reproduced as under: 30&1&91 ,e0 ,.M0 ts0 ,e0 pkSew izfrfu;qfDr ij ,0 ih0 ih0 mi0 us eqyfteku ds fo:) /kkjk 420] 467 o 471] 474] 120 ch Hkk0n0l0 dk vkjksi i= is'k fd;kA voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr /kkjkvksa esa eqyfteku ds fo:) izalgku fy;k tkrk gSA izdj.k ntZ jftLVj gksaA eqyfteku ckotwn iqfyl lwpuk ds vuq0A vr% eqyfteku ds tfj, ch0MCy;w0 2000&2000 ls ryc fd;k tkosA i=koyh fnukad 15&4&91 dks is'k gks 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far the petitioner Ghisa Lal Saini is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence on the record to show that he was having interest in the properties or that he knew the persons who had brought the gift deed for attestation or that he was also a party in the conspiracy. The learned counsel further urged that a bare perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate shows that there is complete non-application of mind on the facts of the case. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned Magistrate did not even mention the names of the accused-persons against whom cognizance has been taken by him, which further shows the non-application of mind by the Magistrate. According to him, there were six accused persons as per the complaint, out of which Smt. Radha Devi had died during the investigation and the police had submitted a charge-sheet against three accused persons only and for the remaining two accused persons, it was opined that no case was made out against them. He submitted that in a case like the present one where the opinion of the Investigating Agency against different accused persons is different one, the Magistrate should clearly state against which of the accused-persons he was taking cognizance. The learned counsel also argued that the Magistrate should have shown as to how the offences are made out prima facie against the petitioner-Ghisa Lal Saini, who was only the Oath Commissioner and had attested the disputed gift deed. 4. From the bare perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has acted in a cursory manner while taking cognizance. The learned Magistrate has not even stated the names of the accused-persons against whom he was taking cognizance. 4. From the bare perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has acted in a cursory manner while taking cognizance. The learned Magistrate has not even stated the names of the accused-persons against whom he was taking cognizance. So far the petitioner is concerned, admittedly he was not a party in the execution of the gift deed, as such, he should have applied his mind as to how a prima facie case was made out against him and for what offences.Normally, this Court does not interfere in the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance. But, in the present case, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind which may cause miscarriage of Justice. Taking cognizance is a judicial order and it is expected from the Magistrates to apply their judicial mind before taking cognizance qua each of the accused-persons. 5. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated Jan. 30, 1991 passed by the Magistrate is hereby quashed and the case is remanded hark to the concerned Magistrate to concerned in accordance with the law.Petition allowed. *******