JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC. is directed against the order dated 22nd August, 1995 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, set aside the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Dvn.) cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nagar, District Bharatpur, dated October 7, 1994. By his said order, the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 147, 148, 336, 341, 342/149, 542, 323, 326/149 IPC against the non- petitioners; by his order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has cancelled the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the aforementioned offences against the petitioner.The fact relevant and material to dispose of the present petition are these :On March 6, 1993, the petitioner Shri Bhowal Singh lodged a First Information Report with Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur wherein it was alleged that when he and other members of his family were sleeping in their house, the non-petitioners duly armed with fire arms, lathies etc., entered into their house, looted their properties and be-laboured them It was alleged that injuries with fire arms were caused to Smt. Shanti and Shibbi. The police registered a case having crime No. 55/93 and on the basis of information given by Shri Bhowal Singh investigated the case. The police, however, arrived at the conclusion that the non-petitioners had also lodged a first information regarding similar incident having taken place in the morning and in such incident one life was lost and several persons had sustained injuries On the basis of such report lodged by the non-petitioners, Crime No. 54/93 had been registered at the police Station. In the opinion of the investigating agency, Bhowal Singh had simply lodged the F.I.R. in an effort to make out a case in defence and that the injuries alleged to have been caused to Smt. Shanti and Shibbi could be self-inflicted. The police accordingly submitted a final report under Section 169 Cr.PC. in the case. Before accepting the final report, the learned Magistrate issued show cause notice to Shri Bhowal Singh whereupon, he filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate rejected the protest petition and accepted the final report on 16.8 1993. The police accordingly submitted a final report under Section 169 Cr.PC. in the case. Before accepting the final report, the learned Magistrate issued show cause notice to Shri Bhowal Singh whereupon, he filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate rejected the protest petition and accepted the final report on 16.8 1993. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner approached the court of Sessions Judge in a Revision Petition and by his order dated 6.9.1994, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur set-aside the order of the Magistrate dated 16.8.93 and directed him to hear the parties again and pass appropriate orders afresh according to law. In compliance of the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 6.9.1994, the learned Magistrate heard the parties and vide his order dated October 7, 94 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326/149, 336, 341 and 342/149 IPC and summoned the non-petitioners and issued process against the non-petitioners. This order of the learned Magistrate dated October 7, 1994 was challenged by the non- petitioners before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg who, by his impugned order, set-aside the order of the learned Magistrate and cancelled the cognizance taken by him against the accused petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, the evidence produced by the complainant before the police is not to be examined in such a way as to give benefit of doubt to the prospective accused and record verdict of not guilty in his favour. If the evidence brought on the record of the Court, discloses prima facie commission of an offence, then cognizance is required to be taken and at that stage of the proceedings, evaluation or appreciation of evidence is neither required nor expected to be done. If the evidence brought on the record of the Court, discloses prima facie commission of an offence, then cognizance is required to be taken and at that stage of the proceedings, evaluation or appreciation of evidence is neither required nor expected to be done. It was submitted that in the present case there was prima facie evidence in the statement of several witnesses, including two injured ladies, who had clearly stated that he non-petitioners had entered into their residential house, looted their properties and used criminal force against them It was submitted that the evidence so produced by the petitioner by that stage should not have been discarded simply on the ground that the witnesses were participants or interested or relatives of the complainant or the absence of any signs at the place of occurrence created some doubt in the truthfulness of the version advanced by the complainant.Mr. Azad Ahmed appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners led me through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and highlighted the fact that the incident in non- petitioners case had already been reported to the police and F.I.R. No. 54/93 had been registered thereupon. In that incident one person had lost his life ana 6 persons had sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant party. The petitioner Shri Bhowal Singh simply lodged a false report with the police in order to save himself and his party and for that purpose certain injuries were shown to have been caused on the persons of two ladies. The learned counsel further submitted that the case advanced by the petitioner was, on the face of it, false and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate against the non-petitioners. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the case reported in (1997) 1 SCC/p 57, Vindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh , which was followed by this Court in the case of Dadamchand v. State of Rajasthan RLR 1987(1) p. 106 . In the case of Vindeswari Prasad Singh, the Supreme Court hold that the Magistrate do not possess inherent powers so as to review or recall the orders passed by them. In the case of Vindeswari Prasad Singh, the Supreme Court hold that the Magistrate do not possess inherent powers so as to review or recall the orders passed by them. In the case of Dadam Chand (supra), this Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court, had held that the order passed by the Magistrate is a judicial order and the same cannot be recalled or reviewed by the Magistrate. The Court has further held that cognizance taken subsequently by the Magistrate in the absence of protection petition against the accused was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. 3. I have gone through the orders of the Lower Court as also considered over the rival submissions advanced before me. By now, it is well settled law that at the time of taking cognizance of an offence the Magistrate is not required to evaluate or appreciate the evidence put forth by the complainant in a way so as to know the worth and value of such evidence and to approach the case from the angle whether benefit of doubt can be extended to the prospective accused at that stage of the proceedings. The case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supl. (1) SCC 335 was a case in respect of powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. and wherein the question of taking cognizance of an offence and/or cancellation of the cognizance so taken by the Magistrate was considered. It was pointed out that a Magistrate is not bound by a negative report submitted by the police and if the material on the record of the police discloses the commission of any offence, the Magistrate is bound to take cognizance of such offence. In the context of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. the Apex Court further observed that such powers should be sparingly exercised in exceptional cases and the cognizance taken should not accordingly be cancelled at that stage of the proceedings. In the context of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. the Apex Court further observed that such powers should be sparingly exercised in exceptional cases and the cognizance taken should not accordingly be cancelled at that stage of the proceedings. Propounding principles applicable in such cases the Apex Court held that: "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (41 Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence by constitute only non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 4. We also give a note of caution to the effed that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR of the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 5. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lai's case (supra) were reiterated in great detail in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.PS. Gill, 1995(6) SCC 194 wherein it was stressed that in the cases where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence care should be taken to cancel the order of the Magistrate. It was further stressed that where the material brought on the record of the Magistrate prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence, then cognizance of such offence should ordinarily be taken and cognizance so taken should not lightly be disturbed by the court. Explaining the legal position, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that "At the stage of question an FIR or complaint the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. Explaining the legal position, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that "At the stage of question an FIR or complaint the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. Of course, as has been pointed out in Bhajan Lai's case an FIR or a complaint may be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but the High Court has not recorded such a finding, obviously because on the allegations in the FIR it was not possible to do so." 6. The same view was again reiterated in the latest decision of Supreme Court reported in 1996(2) S.C. 37, State of H R v. Prithi Singh . 7. It is thus, well settled that at the time of taking cognizance of an offence, the Court is not required to take into account the possible plea of the accused in defence. At that stage of the proceedings what the Magistrate is concerned with is to see whether the evidence, oral or documentary, placed before him by the complainant discloses the commission of an offence and if so, he must take cognizance of such offence. It is, infact, in the fitness of things and in accordance with the scheme of the Code that at the time of taking cognizance of an offence, appreciation of evidence has to be avoided for the obvious reason that the accused has been given a right to challenge the cognizance so taken either before the very Court or before the higher Courts under various provisions in the Code That apart, appreciation and evaluation of the evidence at that stage may also spoil the case of either party, in case the Higher Court taken another view of the matter. 8. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence by his order dated 7.10.1994. Earlier to that he had declined to take cognizance of such offences and had rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner. Such an order of the learned Magistrate did not find favour with the Sessions Judge who had set- aside that order and directed the Magistrate to make further enquiry into the case. Earlier to that he had declined to take cognizance of such offences and had rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner. Such an order of the learned Magistrate did not find favour with the Sessions Judge who had set- aside that order and directed the Magistrate to make further enquiry into the case. Hearing the parties again in the same matter also amounts to further enquiry and therefore, the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties had passed the order dated October 7, 1994 whereby he had taken cognizance of the offence as mentioned above. In his order, the learned Magistrate had specifically referred that in submitting the final report in the case, the police had pointed that Sumuran, Bheem Singh Ramveer and Sudgo had corroborated the version given in the FIR but the investigating officer had disbelieved those witnesses for the reason that they were accused in the cross-case. Another reason which had found favour with the investigating officer, while submitting the final report in the case, was that the injuries caused to Smt. Shanti could be self inflicted in much as the gun-shot stated to have been fired by one of the non-petitioners at Smt. Shanti could not have caused injuries on her foot. That apart, the factum of death of one person and injuries to six other persons on the non-petitioners side had also weighed with the police. The learned Magistrate had dealt with both the issues and had concluded that at that stage of the proceedings, it was not desirable that the evidence of the witnesses be discarded on the ground that they happened to be the relatives of the complainant and/or accused in the cross case. Undisputedly, some incident had taken place and injuries to certain persons on both sides were alleged to have been caused. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, was not justified in holding that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was incorrect or suffered from the vice of illegality or invalidity in exercise of his jurisdiction. Section 397 Cr.PC. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, was not justified in holding that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was incorrect or suffered from the vice of illegality or invalidity in exercise of his jurisdiction. Section 397 Cr.PC. empowers the Sessions Judge to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the order made, sentence passed and proceedings taken by the subordinate court and to see whether the order made was incorrect or the finding recorded was contrary to the evidence on record or the proceedings taken suffered from material irregularity if he finds so it then, of course, the learned Sessions Judge may interfere with the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Magistrate. In the course of examining he correctness and legality and propriety of the finding or order, recorded or passed by the inferior court, the revisional court cannot enter into the field of evaluation of the evidence in a way so as to hold the perspective accused-person not guilty of the offence alleged to have been committed. In para 6 of his order, which is reproduced below, the learned Sessions Judge, appears to have exercised his jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. in cancelling the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate : " vr% esjs fopkj esa ;g izdj.k ys'kek= Hkh ,slk ugha ik;k tkrk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) izkslhM djus ;ksX; dksbZ ;Fks"B vk/kkj gksA blds foijhr izdj.k ds rF;ksa vkSj vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh }kjk vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ys[kc) dh x;h lk{; ls ;g Li"V tkfgj gksrk gS fd xokgku tks ewy :i esa Qfj;knh ds fgrc) gSa dsoyek= mUgha ds }kjk ?kVuk dh iqf"V gsrq c;ku ys[kc) djk;s x;s gSa ftuds c;kuksa ij fdlh Hkh :i ls fo'okl djus dk vk/kkj ugha gS cfYd okLrfodrk ;gh gS fd gR;k ds vijk/k ls cpus ds iz;kl esa pksVsa cukdj ;g izFke lwpuk MdSrh dk vkjksi yxkrs gq, fuxjkuhdkjku ds fo:) is'k dh x;h gS tks fd izkslhM djus ds ;Fkss"B vk/kkj ds vHkko esa ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k dh iqf"V fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA " 9. It is evident that in passing his impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has been influenced by the fact that the witnesses supporting the case of the petitioner were interested persons and that injuries to more persons had been caused on the side of the non-petitioners. It is evident that in passing his impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has been influenced by the fact that the witnesses supporting the case of the petitioner were interested persons and that injuries to more persons had been caused on the side of the non-petitioners. As stated above, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in evaluating evidence in that way at that stage of proceedings. To conclude, I hold that the learned Sessions Judge did not exercise his jurisdiction vested in him under Section 397 Cr.P.C. in accordance with the well established principles of law and therefore, the impugned order suffers from vice of excess of jurisdiction. 10. Consequently, the petition is allowed, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is set-aside and the order of the learned Magistrate is restored.The case is sent back to the learned Magistrate with a direction to proceed further against the non-petitioners in accordance with the provisions of law.Petition allowed *******