Honble DALELA, J. – This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.4.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Cr. Case No. 72/95, whereby he has taken cognizance against the accused petitioners for the offences under section 304-B & 498A I.P.C. and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (2). The First Information Report No. 71/94 was lodged with the Police Station, Patan Nagar under sections 304-B, 498A, 147 I.P.C. on 25.10.1994. In this matter the police filed charge-sheet against only one accused Ram Prasad alias Ram Pratap alias Avinash. The result of the investigation was indicated that an offence under section 306 I.P.C. was made out against the said Ram Prasad alias Avinash. Against other persons, who were named in the F.I.R. and are the petitioners in this petition no offence was indicated. The trial court after taking the cognizance against said Ram Prasad alias Avinash proceeded ahead according to the prescribed procedure and the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under section 306 I.P.C. on 19—4—1995 against said Ram Prasad alias Avinash. On 13.3.1995, the complainant preferred an application before the learned Magistrate praying that the cognizance may be taken against the other alleged accused, who are the petitioners in this petition. On 4.4.1995, the counsel for the complainant stated that he does not want to press the application dated 13.3.1995 and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application as not pressed. The complainant presented a complaint on 28.3.1995 before the learned Judicial Magistrate and after recording the statement under section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under section 304- B, 498-A I.P.C. read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Feeling aggrieved by this order of taking cognizance, the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision petition of setting aside the order dated 25.4.1995 of taking cognizance. (3). The respondent No.2 who is the complainant in the criminal proceedings has filed a reply to the revision petition and has contested it. (4). At the request of both the sides, this revision petition is being disposed off at this admission stage. (5). I have heard the arguments of both the sides. (6). The order of taking cognizance and issuing the process is an interlocutory order. (4). At the request of both the sides, this revision petition is being disposed off at this admission stage. (5). I have heard the arguments of both the sides. (6). The order of taking cognizance and issuing the process is an interlocutory order. It has been held so in the case of Khet Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1). This has been so held by this Court on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala (2). In Shakti Dan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (3) on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court this Court has again held that the order of taking cognizance is an inter locutory order passed behind the back of the accused. (7). It is well settled in law that no revision lies against the inter locutory orders. (8). The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the dismissal of the complainants application dated 13.3.1995 as not pressed implied that no case was made out against the petitioners for the offences under sections 304-B and 498 A I.P.C. read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and thereafter taking cognizance on 25.4.1995 tantamounts to recalling of the order dated 4.4.1995 by the same Court. According to the learned counsel the learned Magistrate is not competent to do so. The learned counsel has referred to the order dated 9.8.1994 of this Court passed in Revision Petition of Nema Ram & Ors. vs. Mangi Lal to support his arguments. (9). On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant respondent No.2 has argued that the application dated 13.3.1995 was not pressed by the complainant and, therefore, it was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as not pressed. That application was never decided on merit and it was never treated as a complaint. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ordered for framing the charge for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on 19.4.1995 against Ram Prasad alias Avinash only on the basis of the charge- sheet/challan filed by the prosecution and in the challan no offence other than under section 306 I.P.C. was indicated. The learned Magistrate framed the charge under section 306 I.P.C. not after taking account of the application dated 13.3.1995 of the complainant respondent No.2 as that application was dismissed as not pressed. The learned Magistrate framed the charge under section 306 I.P.C. not after taking account of the application dated 13.3.1995 of the complainant respondent No.2 as that application was dismissed as not pressed. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 subsequent cognizance on the complaint of the respondent No.2 is not barred and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was competent to take cognizance on the basis of the allegations and evidence produced in support of the complaint under section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 there is no legal infirmity in the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498- A and 147 I .P.C. To support his arguments he has referred to Vasudeo & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (4), Mst. Achana vs. State of Rajasthan (5), Sheela vs. State of Rajasthan (6), Hare Ram Satpathi vs. Tika Ram Agarwal (7) and Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors. (8). (10). I have considered the arguments advanced by both the sides. In the case Nema Ram & Ors. vs. Mangi Lal referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners the police after investigation submitted the challan only against one accused Govind Ram and for the other accused petitioners, the investigation agency found no offence to be made out. The complainant through the Addl. Public Prosecutor filed a protest petition before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate praying that the cognizance may also be taken against the other accused petitioners. The learned Magistrate after perusing the challan papers dismissed the application holding that there do not exist sufficient grounds for taking cognizance against the accused petitioners. In the peculiar facts & circumstances of that case this Court held on 9.8.94 that once the learned Magistrate did not find sufficient grounds to take cognizance against the accused petitioners, he was legally not competent and authorised to take cognizance against them on the basis of a criminal complaint filed subsequently as he had no power to review or recall his earlier order before the stage as envisaged under section 319 Cr.P.C. had reached. Obviously in the case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Magistrate had considered the application of the complainant on merit and the learned Magistrate had passed a specific order that there did not exist sufficient grounds for taking cognizance against the accused petitioners, but in the case in hand, the facts and circumstances are quite different in as much as the application dated 13.3. 1995 of the complainant respondent No.2 was not decided by the learned Magistrate on merit, but was dismissed as not pressed because the learned counsel for the complainant had expressed before the learned Magistrate that he did not want to press the application. In my opinion, therefore, the order of this Court dated 9.8.1994 passed in Criminal Revision Nema Ram & Ors. vs. Mangi Lal is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. (11). The learned Magistrate has never treated the application of the complainant respondent No.2 filed on 13.3.1995 as complaint nor that application was decided on merit. It was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as not pressed. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. I am of the view that the subsequent complaint is not barred under the law and the learned Magistrate is also not barred from taking cognizance thereon. (12). The learned Magistrate has considered the material before him and passed the order of taking cognizance. The order of taking cognizance was ex parte and passed without any opportunity of hearing to the accused. Therefore, the petitioners may appear before the learned Magistrate and show to that court that the alleged offences are not made out against them or that the order of taking cognizance is incompetent. The order of taking cognizance and issuing process will not be a bar to drop the proceedings if the petitioners are able to show and convince the Magistrate that no case is made out against them. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on prima facie being satisfied that the complaint and the evidence in support thereof make out an offence or offences against them and this is not the stage to scrutinize whether there is any truth or otherwise in the allegations, because the cognizance has been taken on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. The petitioner is, therefore, free to raise all the objections before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate will consider all those objections raised by the petitioners and if he is satisfied that taking of cognizance is incompetent then he may drop the proceedings. In my opinion no case is made out calling for interference in the order of the learned Magistrate. The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. (13). Accordingly, with the above observations the petition is dismissed.