JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the judgment dated 6-4-91, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and maintained the order dated 22-4-89, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nokha, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 504, I.P.C. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no material available on record for taking the cognizance against the petitioner and even from the allegations, made in the complaint and the evidence collected by the prosecution, the ingredients of Section 504, I.P.C. have not been made-out and the learned lower Court, also, did not consider the Final Report submitted by the investigating agency and took the cognizance against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The order taking cognizance is an ex-parte order passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the accused. The petitioner may, therefore, in pursuance to the process issued against him, appear before the learned Magistrate and show to the Court that the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence collected by the investigating agency do not constitute any crime involving the accused and satisfy the Court that if the relevant material would have been taken into consideration the cognizance would not have been taken against him. The petitioner may, also, reiterate before the learned Magistrate that without considering the Final Report submitted by the police, the cognizance could not have been taken. If the petitioner wants to raise any other argument showing to the Court that no case for taking the cognizance is made-out then he will be free to raise all these objections and the learned Magistrate will consider all those objections raised by the petitioner and if it is satisfied that there is no material available on record for taking the cognizance then he may drop the proceedings. The taking of cognizance and issuing the process will not act as a bar to drop the proceedings, if the complaint, the evidence collected by the investigating agency and produced before the Court, on the very face of it do not disclose any offence against the accused- petitioner. The view taken by me is based on the judgment of the Honrble Supreme Court rendered in : K.M. Methew v. The State of Kerala and another, JT 1991 (4) SC 464 . 5. With these observations the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is disposed of.Petition disposed of accordingly. *******