JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.97 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents and quashed the order of taking coqnizance by the Magistrate. 2. Mr. Shah contends that the approach of the Addl. Sessions Judge is wholly erroneous and the Magistrate was well within his jurisdiction to take cognizance against the respondents on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. He places reliance on the case of Bhoj Raj Singh v. State of Raj. 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 221 . 3. Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel for the respondents nos. 2 to 4 submits that the cognizance against the left out accused persons could be taken only under section 319 Cr.P.C. and as evidence had not been recorded in the case, the cognizance order is not sustainable and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the revision filed by the respondents. He relies on the base of Smt. Lalita v. State of Raj. 1996 RCC 580 . 4. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. The relevant facts are that petitioner Damodar had lodged a first information report at Police Station Bhaleri with the allegations that Radhey Shyam, Bajrang Lal, Sita Ram, Ram Prasad, Sheo Devi and Dropadi had formed unlawful assembly and had caused injuries by lathis, 'Jei' and 'Chosangi' to him and his brother Shyam Sunder after entering into his house. On this report F.I.R. No. 58/93 was registered. After the investigation the police submitted challan against Radhey Shyam, Bajrang and Sita Ram only. Thereafter petitioner-complainant filed a private complaint for taking cognizance against Ram Prasad, Sheo Devi and Dropadi. The learned Magistrate after examining the complainant under section 200 and his witnesses under section 302 Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the three respondents by a speaking order dated 22.9.95. This order was challenged by way of revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge who quashed the cognizance observing that cognizance could not be taken twice in respect of the same incident. 5. Section 120 Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence. Under clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) Magistrate may take cognizance on the police report and under clause (a) he can take cognizance on the complaint. Sessions Judge who quashed the cognizance observing that cognizance could not be taken twice in respect of the same incident. 5. Section 120 Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence. Under clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) Magistrate may take cognizance on the police report and under clause (a) he can take cognizance on the complaint. It is not a case when the investigation was going on and the Magistrate on the private complaint has taken cognizance and has not acted under section 210 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the police had already filed challan after completing the investigation and on the basis of the police report the Magistrate had taken cognizance against three accused persons. The complainant therefore, had to file a private complaint for taking cognizance against the these accused persons left out by the police. After recording evidence under Chapter XV the learned Magistrate passed the order of taking cognizance. There is no legal bar for taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint against the accused left out by the police. It is true that after the trial proceeds additional accused can be added only under section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of evidence produced in the trial, but that stage has not reached. Simply because the Magistrate had taken cognizance of three accused persons on the basis of the police report, there was no bar for exercising power under clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 190 Cr.P.C. This Court in the case of Bhoj Raj Singh (supra) has clearly held that once cognizance of the offence has been taken on the papers submitted under S. 173 Cr.P.C. and thereafter a complaint is entertained and process is issued after recording the statement of the witnesses there is no illegality in the order. I fully agree with the view taken in that case. The Magistrate's power to take cognizance under clause (a) does not come to an end by taking cognizance under clause (b) of sub-Sec. (2) of Section 190 against the accused challaned by the police. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has obviously committed grave error in quashing the order of cognizance. 6. The case of Smt. Lalita (supra) relied on by Mr. Kumbhat does not lay down law on the powers of the Magistrate to take cognizance under section 190 Cr.P.C. 7. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The order passed by the Addl. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has obviously committed grave error in quashing the order of cognizance. 6. The case of Smt. Lalita (supra) relied on by Mr. Kumbhat does not lay down law on the powers of the Magistrate to take cognizance under section 190 Cr.P.C. 7. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge is set-aside and that of the learned Magistrate is restored.Petition Allowed-Order of Court of Session Set-Aside and that Magistrate Sustained. *******