JUDGMENT 1. - This a revision petition against the order of learned Additional sessions Judge, Dausa dated 3.8.98 by which he set aside the order of earned Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot dated 8.7.97 by which he had taken cognizance against the accused respondents for offences U/ss. 147, 452, 341 & 323 IPC. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, learned counsel for the accused respondents as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Briefly stated, Mohan Lal filed a report at Police Station Nangal Rajawatan on 12.8.96 with regard to an incident which took place on 11.8.96. It was alleged that the accused persons came and entered into the house of the complainant and have given beatings. The incident occurred at 7.00 p.m. on 11.8.96. Certain other persons were also given beatings. However, after investigation police submitted final report. Then the complainant filed a protest petition and statement of Mohan Lal, Smt. Kanta, Smt. Maya, Smt. Kamla, Kailash, Jahangir Khan, Gangadhar, Kalu Ram and Mohan Lal Poonya were recorded. Learned Magistrate issued process to the accused persons vide order dated 8.7.97. The learned Magistrate in his 8 pages detailed order discussed the entire evidence which was recorded by police and by him. He was satisfied that there were ground for proceeding as per provisions of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But on revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa set aside the order on various grounds. They are, delay in lodging report, non-presence of blood at the place of occurrence, the case being in defence in cross case, the witnesses were relations to each other, some of the witnesses were produced in the court who were not examined during investigation and contradictions in statements. 4. Mr. Bagri submitted that Hazari Lal & Ors. v. State of Raj. (RLR 1985 page 223) which has been relied by the revisional court has not been correctly appreciated in the facts and circumstances of this case. In Hazari Lals case (supra), the police had filed in final report and it was observed that the investigating officer could come to his conclusion but the complainant was at liberty to file a private complaint and can prove the case of the prosecution. According to Mr. In Hazari Lals case (supra), the police had filed in final report and it was observed that the investigating officer could come to his conclusion but the complainant was at liberty to file a private complaint and can prove the case of the prosecution. According to Mr. Bajwa, in the case in hand, the police had submitted final report and then the complainant had filed a complaint which was enquired under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and then cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate which should not be ordinarily and lightly interfered. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Gupta submitted that the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate suffers from the lacunae which were pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He cited M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. (1998 SC 128) and submitted that the law laid down in that if averments in the complaint prima facie make out a case then the order summoning the accused can be passed. 6. After having gone through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I am of the view that he should not have lightly interfered in the order of the learned Magistrate by which he had taken cognizance against the petitioners for the simple reason that the points which he considered and which I have enumerated are such which are to be seen at the conclusions of the trial and not the stage of issuing process U/s. 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Of course, the matter is to be looked into prima facie whether sufficient grounds for proceeding exist or not but in the present case the ground which have been considered to set aside the order taking cognizance U/s. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not appear to be sound looking to all the facts and circumstances and the evidence recorded in this case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while making discussion in para 7 of his judgment has wrongly concluded that no case appears to be made out prima facie and that there were not grounds to proceed in the matter. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while making discussion in para 7 of his judgment has wrongly concluded that no case appears to be made out prima facie and that there were not grounds to proceed in the matter. He has, of course, no considered the Hazari Lals case (supra) in proper prospective in which no complaint was filed after FR was given and enquiry under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. was made. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby allowed. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa dated 3.8.98 is set aside and the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot dated 8.7.97 is revived. The accused respondents are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot on 20.3.2001 and their Advocate is informed that the accused respondents produced before the learned Magistrate on 20.3.2001.Revision petition allowed. *******