JUDGMENT 1. -This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities) Sri Ganganagar on 26.3.1998 whereby he rejected the application of Hajari Ram (first informant) for taking cognizance under section 319, Cr.P.C. against four respondents No. 2 to 5. 2. The short facts of the case are these. On 25.10.1994, Hajari Ram lodged a report at Police Station, Chunawadh, stating that his sister Radha Rani alias Geetadevi was married to Balram but soon after the marriage her husband Balram, mother-in-law Shrangari, sister-in-law Chunna and brothers-in-law Krishna & Om Prakash started ill-treating her and harassing her for bringing dowry. When Rai Singh, son of the first informant went to take Radha, the accused refused to bed her and told that Radha would not go alive from their house. Anyhow, after some time they agreed to send her. While at his house Radha told him that she should not be sent to her father-in-law's house otherwise there are chances of some untoward incident. It was further stated in the report that day before yesterday the five accused persons administered poison to Radha and she has been killed. On this report, a case under section 304-B IPC was registered. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against Salram only. After the statements of the doctor and Hajari Ram were recorded in the trial Court, an application was moved under section 319 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance against remaining accused persons which was rejected by the learned Special Judge. 3. Mr. Punia contends that in the FIR the names of all the accused were mentioned and Hajari Ram also disclosed the names of all the accused in his statement recorded in the trial Court. He points out that according to Hajari Ram, when Rai Singh went to take Radha, he on return informed him that all the five accused had told him that if the items were not sent to them, he would not see Radha alive. He also refers to the report of the FSL on visras taken during post-mortem-examination which indicates that there was presence of Dimethoate insecticide. 4. Mr. Shah, on the other hand, supports the order of the trial Court. 5. The learned Special Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner mainly on the ground that in the FIR some details were not stated. 4. Mr. Shah, on the other hand, supports the order of the trial Court. 5. The learned Special Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner mainly on the ground that in the FIR some details were not stated. According to him, the name of the sister-in-law was not stated and the fact that Rai Singh informed the first informant that if the articles were not sent, they would not see Radha alive was not stated therein. In my opinion, the learned Special Judge has obviously fallen in error in rejecting the application on the basis of the aforesaid omissions in the FIR. 6. Regarding the ground that the name of sister-in-law was not stated in the FIR, it is relevant to state that the sister-in-law has been referred to in Para 3 of the FIR as the person who was harassing Radha for bringing dowry. It is insignificant that her name was not written but the description was written that the sister-in-law was one who was married in Manniwali. When in his statement before the Court, Hajari Ram disclose the name of that sister-in-law, it cannot be said that there was any such omission in the FIR which could be considered fatal and that too at the stage of taking cognizance. 7. Regarding the second ground, it is relevant to refer to Para 6 of the FIR in which it was stated that when Rai Singh went to take Radha, on his return he informed his father that there was danger to the life of Radha. It is neither customary nor a rule that the FIR must contain all the minute details of the occurrence. The purpose of the FIR is only to set the criminal law in motion. When Hajari Ram had pointedly mentioned that all the five persons had harassed Radha for dowry and committed cruelty on her, the learned Special Judge was not justified in not allowing the application filed by the first informant under section 319, Cr.P.C. 8. Cognizance can be taken under section 319, Cr.P.C. by a Court of Sessions even on the basis of the single statement recorded before it, if the Court is of the opinion that the person against whom some material has come in that statement deserves to be called for facing trial. Cognizance can be taken under section 319, Cr.P.C. by a Court of Sessions even on the basis of the single statement recorded before it, if the Court is of the opinion that the person against whom some material has come in that statement deserves to be called for facing trial. It would not be necessary at that stage to hold that the evidence proves the guilt of the accused as that would be the stage of final adjudication. 9. At the sage of deciding the application under section 319, Cr.P.C., only it is to be considered whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused named in the application. It was not the stage at which the learned Special Judge should have seen whether conviction was possible. The learned Special Judge has obviously exceeded his jurisdiction in giving importance to the omissions of the minor nature in the FIR. The standard of proof for proceeding against the persons under section 319, Cr.P.C. is the same as is required for taking cognizance under section 204, Cr.P.C. or under section 190 Cr.P.C. The order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 10. Consequently, revision petition succeeds. The application of the petitioner filed under section 319, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The learned Special Judge is directed to proceed against the four respondents in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******