Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this application field under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29-7-1998 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Revision No. 134 of 1997 by which he has set aside the order dated 31-3-1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in Sonbarsa P.S. case No. 40 of 1995 and took cognizance of the offences punishable under Secs. 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 8. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8-6-1995, the petitioner reported to the Sonbarsa police that his younger brother, namely, Ashwini Kumar Jha, was severely assaulted by the accused-persons including Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 8 who were armed with lethal weapons as well as fire-arms. It was further stated by the petitioner that his younger brother was dragged mercilessly to the house of the accused Gugal Yadav. The accused-persons continued assaulting the victim with lathi and forcibly took away a golden chain, golden ring and a wrist-watch of the victim Ashwini Kumar Jha. On the basis of the said report, a criminal case was registered for offences under Secs. 147, 148, 341, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act against the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 8. 3. The petitioners case is that in course of investigation by the Sbribarsa police, the petitioner and his family members realised that the accused-persons had influenced the police authority, the petitioner became apprehensive and as such, the petitioner filed a protest petition in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, and prayed that after receipt of the police report, appropriate steps may be taken in the light of the protest petition. It is stated that experiencing the dubious role of the police in course of investigation, the witnesses of the occurrence got their statements recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code. Sonbarsa police, however, submitted charge-sheet under Secs. 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against accused-persons, all sons of Bhalu Yadav and names of Ramautar Yadav and Kailash Yadav were not sent up for trial. Sonbarsa police, however, submitted charge-sheet under Secs. 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against accused-persons, all sons of Bhalu Yadav and names of Ramautar Yadav and Kailash Yadav were not sent up for trial. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate perused the charge-sheet and other materials and took cognizance of the offences under the aforementioned sections against all the accused-persons named in the F.I.R. namely Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 8. Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 jointly filed Cr. Revision No. 134 of 1997 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Saharsa against the aforesaid order dated 31-3-1997. The said revision was ultimately heard by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa, who by the impugned order, quashed the order of cognizance taken under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and further quashed the order issuing summons against Ramautar Yadav and Kailash Yadav. Hence, this revision application. 4. Mr. A.S. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of the offences on the basis of complaint or protest petition on same and similar allegations of fact. Learned Counsel submitted that the protest petition filed by the petitioner was supported by the statements of the witnesses including victim recorded under Sec. 164, Cr. P.C. and medical certificate along with injury report. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded in exercise of his jurisdiction while quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel. 5. As noticed above, the prosecution case is that the criminals, 12 in number, were variously armed with country-made pistol and lathi overpowered the victim and dragged him to the door of Gudal Yadav and assaulted him with Zathi and removed certain cash from his person. The revisional Court reappraised the evidence and came to a finding that the accused-persons had to intention to kill Ashwini Kumar Jha and as such no offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made against the opposite parties. Accordingly, cognizance taken under Sec. 307, I.P.C. was quashed. The revisional Court reappraised the evidence and came to a finding that the accused-persons had to intention to kill Ashwini Kumar Jha and as such no offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made against the opposite parties. Accordingly, cognizance taken under Sec. 307, I.P.C. was quashed. The revisional Court further took the view that the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance of the offence has no jurisdiction to issue summons against the accused who have not been charge-sheeted. On this ground, the revisional Court also quashed the order of issuance of summons against Ramautar Yadav and Kailash Yadav. In my opinion, the Court has further committed illegality in doing so. 6. From perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate it appears that the Magistrate, after perusal of the F.I.R., injury report, statement of the witnesses in the case diary and statements of the witnesses, recorded under Sec. 164, Cr. P.C. and other materials available in the case diary and protest petition came to a prima facie finding that the case has been made out under the aforesaid sections including Sec. 307, I.P.C. against the accused-persons including the persons shown in Columns 2 and 3 of the charge-sheet. The Magistrate, therefore, took cognizance of the offence against the accused-persons under the aforesaid sections. 7. Admittedly, the order was not passed by the learned Magistrate at the stage of commitment of the case. As noticed above after submission of the charge-sheet on the protest petition filed by the informant, the learned Magistrate examined the entire materials on record including the case diary and the statements recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code. The learned Magistrate found involvement of the accused with the commission of the offence and, therefore, cognizance was taken. The revision Court, .therefore, has committed serious illegality in holding that the Magistrate has no power to take cognizance against the persons not charge-sheeted even if there are sufficient materials against them on the record. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and reasons made above, this application is allowed, the impugned order dated 29-7-1998 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Rev. No. 134 of 1997 is quashed the order dated 31-3-1997 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 40 of 1995 is restored.