JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against The order dated 20-11-1991, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 452, 354 and 323 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Snit. Meera submitted a written report on 19-9-1991, at Police Station, Suratgarh. It was alleged in this report that in the night of 18-9-1991, when she was in her house, accused Puran, Ladu, Santa, Ladu Patwari, Bhagu, the nephew of Pappi Patwari and two-three more persons having Lathis in their hands, came to her house and caused injuries and, also, abused her. They were, at that time, in a drunken state. On hearing her cries, her son came there, snatched the Lathi and thereupon the accused went away. In the night accused Santa again came to her house, and caught hold of. her, she raised the cries, whereupon her son came there, snatched the Lathi from accused Santa and thereupon Santa went away. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 452, 148, 149, 354 and 323 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was registered against the accused-petitioners. The police, after necessary investigation, submitted the Final Report as according to the investigating agency. The learned Magistrate did not accept the Final Report and took cognizance by its order dated 20-11-91. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred this miscellaneous petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no material available on record, on the basis of which the cognizance could have been taken against the petitioners. The F.I.R. and the evidence produced by the complainant do not disclose any of the offences against the petitioners and, therefore, the order taking cognizance as well as the proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the F.I.R. No. 280 of 1991 registered on 19-9-91 at Police Station, Suratgarh, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners and further submitted that there was sufficient material available on record, on which the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the petitioners. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners and further submitted that there was sufficient material available on record, on which the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the petitioners. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The order taking cognizance, though is an ex-parte order, can be set-aside if it has been passed by the learned Magistrate arbitrarily and without application of mind. If there is a prima facie evidence, which is sufficient to establish a fact or to raise a presumption of truth of a fact unless controverted, then the cognizance can be taken, but if there is no such material available on record and the allegations made in the complaint or in the statement of the complainant and/or his witnesses do not disclose any offence against the accused or the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable then no process can be issued against the accused and the accused cannot be unnecessarily put under harassment of prosecution The process can be issued only if there is a prima fade case against the accused. From a bare perusal of the First Information Report and the statement of the complainant and her witnesses, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it is clear that they do not disclose any of the offences against the petitioners, for which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. When the un-controverted statements of the witnesses do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused-petitioners and do not make-out a case against them then the order of taking cognizance, passed by the learned Magistrate, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In absence of any material to proceed-with against the petitioners, the order taking cognizance, passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioners, is allowed and the order dated 20-11-91, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class,. Suratgarh, taking cognizance against the petitioners, is quashed and set-aside. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 536 of 1991 State of Rajasthan v. Puran and others pending in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, are, also, quashed.Petition allowed. *******