A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THE order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Banpur, refusing to accept the prayer of the petitioner, who happened to be the informant in G. R. Case No. 12 of 1991 to proceed against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, is the subject-matter of challenge. ( 2 ) A brief reference to the factual position is necessary. On 8. 1. 1991 the petitioner filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge of Nachuni Police Outpost alleging commission of offence punishable under section 486 read section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, I. P. C. ). It was indicated in the report that on the previous night, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 set fire to her residential house which act was witnessed by Bhikari Martha Bijaya Paikray. Investigation was undertaken by Police. A report was submitted after investigation before the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, to the effect that there was no material to show involvement of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. An application was filed by the informant to take cognizance of the offence punishable under section 486 read with section 84, and to proceed against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. With reference to the statement of the informant and the witnesses recorded under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code) and the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code it was submitted that prima facie case was revealed against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer being of the view that relevant materials were absent in the statements recorded under section 164 of the Code vis-a-vis the first information report. It was observed that informant's silence about witnesses implicating accused-opp. party Nos. 2 and 3, clearly ruled out involvement of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The material particulars as indicated in the first information report were totally absent in the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 164 of the Code. Accordingly, the prayer was refused and the final report submitted by the Police was accepted. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of taking cognizance an elaborate analysis of the fact situation is not warranted. The Court was required to see whether materials existed to primafacie show commission of an offence. Accordingly, the prayer was refused and the final report submitted by the Police was accepted. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of taking cognizance an elaborate analysis of the fact situation is not warranted. The Court was required to see whether materials existed to primafacie show commission of an offence. It is stated that a conjoint reading of the statements recorded and the first information report clearly reveals the commission of offence, and therefore, the order of the learned J. M. P. C. is indefensible. Shri B. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 by way of reply submits that broad probabilities of the case have to be considered and where the allegations accepted in toto do not make out an offence, the Magistrate can refuse 10 take cognizance. According 10 him, the informant herself in the statement recorded under section 164 of the Code, has not implicated the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, and therefore the learned J. M. P. C. was justified in rejecting the prayer to take cognizance of the offence under section 436/34, I. P. C. ( 4 ) THOUGH the expression Tmay take cognizance of the offencet is used in section 190 of the Code, there is no definition of the expression in the Code. But from the scheme of the Code, the content and heading of section 190 and the caption of Chapter XIV under which sections 190 to 199 occur, it is clear that a case can be said 10 be instituted in a Court only when it takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) lay down the ways in which such cognizance can be taken. In its broad and liberal sense, cognizance means taking notice of an offence and would include the intention of initiating judicial proceeding against the offender in respect of that offence or taking steps to show if there is any basis for initiating judicial proceeding or for other purposes. Criminal proceedings are initiated by the Magistrate by taking cognizance of an offence. Section 190 is one out of a group of sections appearing in Chapter XIV under the heading TConditions requisites for initiation of proceedings. There is a difference between taking cognizance of an offence and prosecution of the offender. Criminal proceedings are initiated by the Magistrate by taking cognizance of an offence. Section 190 is one out of a group of sections appearing in Chapter XIV under the heading TConditions requisites for initiation of proceedings. There is a difference between taking cognizance of an offence and prosecution of the offender. Under section 190 cognizance of an offence is taken and not necessarily of the individual offender whose name transpired during the course of investigation. The section does not empower the Magistrate to deal with the offenders, but to take cognizance of the offence. Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action, or indeed action of any kind, but occurs as soon as the Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. It is threshold act, when the Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence. The duty of the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance is to examine the statements of the complainant and the witnesses whenever any enquiry is held not with a view to be satisfied that on such material conviction must result. He has to come to a conclusion about existence of a prima facie case. Section 190 provides that cognizance has to be taken of any offence and as indicated above no reference is made to the offender. At the stage of taking cognizance the sine qua non is the existence of a prima facie case and not the possibility of conviction or acquittal. The Magistrate at that stage is not required to make an indepth analysis of the evidence on record. But when the materials on record do not prima facie show commission of any offence the Magistrate would be perfectly justified in refusing to take cognizance. Cognizance has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. It merely means to become aware of and, when used with reference to a Court or Judge to take notice of judicially. It cannot be a mechanical act There may be cases where the Magistrate finds that the materials which the prosecutor proposed to adduce to prove guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination, does not show existence of any prima facie case. In that case it may be a sufficient ground in proceeding with the case. In that case it may be a sufficient ground in proceeding with the case. A observed by the apex Court in Eastern Spinning Mils and Virendra Kumar Sharda v. Rajiv Poddar, and State of Bihar v. Raj Narain Singh, when considering the purpose and ambit of sections 227, 228 of the Code, evidence is yet to be taken and the aspects which accused terms valunerable can very well be clarified by evidence when the prosecution has its opportunity of placing the case through witnesses in Court. It would be hazardous to act on the discrepancies unless they are so fatal and glaring as to affect the credibility of the prosecution case without affording reasonable opportunity to prosecution to substantiate the allegations. ( 5 ) THE scheme of the Criminal Procedure which is based upon French Criminal Procedure in this respect is that few parallel agencies have been set up for taking to Court of criminal offence: the police and the private aggrieved party are placed on a parallel footing. The object of the Code is to ensure the freedom and safety of the subject in that it gives him the right to come to Court if he considers that a wrong has been done to him or to the society and be a check upon police vagaries. A court can take cognizance of an offence only when conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings before it as set out in Chapter XIV are fulfilled; otherwise the Court does not Guna obtain jurisdiction to try the offence (see Mohamed Safi v. State of West Bengal ). However, State the expression may take cognizancet in the context of clause (b) of sub-section (1) means must take cognizance. The Magistrate has no discretion in the matter, otherwise the section will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (See A. C. Aggrawal, Sub-divisional Magistrate Delhi v. Mst. Ramkal, Jagarlamudi Suriya Prasad and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ). In Tula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh, and H. S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), it was observed that what section 190 contemplates is that the Magistrate takes cognizance once he makes himself fully conscious and aware of the allegations made in the complaint, and decided to examine or test the validity of the said allegations. In Tula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh, and H. S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), it was observed that what section 190 contemplates is that the Magistrate takes cognizance once he makes himself fully conscious and aware of the allegations made in the complaint, and decided to examine or test the validity of the said allegations. ( 6 ) IN the case at hand unfortunately the approach of the learned Magistrate was as if he was required to record a finding about the guilt or otherwise of the accused persons. It was not the appropriate stage to do so. Even if the statement of the informant did not specifically refer to the two accused persons, the effect of the same vis-avis the statements of Shikari and Bijaya can be tested in trial. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid background, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate did not approach the case before him in its proper perspective. Accordingly, I set aside the order and direct the learned Magistrate to re-consider the matter. My interference shall not be construed as if I have expressed any opinion about merits of the case, as pleaded by the parties. The revision application is allowed; Petition allowed. .