JUDGMENT 1. (Oral)- Instant revision filed by complainant Alok Sharma is directed against the order dated 13.3.2000, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA Cases) & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted the revision and quashed and set-aside the order dated 29.9.199,9, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 18, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which that Court took cognizance against the accused respondents. 2. Record was called for. Notices were issued. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is illegal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly appreciated the evidence and facts of the case and has taken into consideration many irrelevant factors and held that if cognizance is taken against the police-in such manner, it would demoralize the police force. It is prayed that the impugned order should be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, contention of learned counsel for the accused respondents is that the impugned order is quite legal. n the present matter, complainant filed a complaint before the lower court, which was sent to Police under Section 156(3) for investigation. After investigation police filed final report in the Court and found the case to be false one. When final report was submitted before the lower court, the complainant filed protest petition before the Court. Learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of complainant and after hearing arguments, took cognizance. Learned counsel further contends that learned Magistrate has appreciated only that evidence which was recorded by him under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC. and not appreciated the evidence recorded by the Police during investigation under Section 161 Cr.PC. and has also not appreciated the material collected by Police. He further contends that after investigation, Police submits final report and protest petition is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate records the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC. then at the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate should consider the evidence recorded by him under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and should also consider those statements which were recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and should consider all the material collected by the Investigation Officer during the investigation. He contends that under these circumstances, when Magistrate has not considered the material collected by the Investigating Officer, then the order of taking cognizance should be set-aside. 5. He contends that under these circumstances, when Magistrate has not considered the material collected by the Investigating Officer, then the order of taking cognizance should be set-aside. 5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I come to the conclusion that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge is not proper. Learned Judge should not have appreciated the evidence in meticulous manner. He has considered so many factors which were out of record. In my view the impugned order dated 13.3.2000 is illegal and deserves to the set-aside. 6. 1 have also examined the order of learned Magistrate dated 29.9.1999. He has also committed illegality. He has mainly considered the evidence recorded by him under Section 200 and 202 Cr.PC. He should have also considered the entire evidence collected by Investigating Officer during the investigation. 7. In my view, the order passed by learned Magistrate dated 29.9.1999 is also bad in law and it is also set-aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to consider evidence recorded by him and evidence recorded by the investigating Officer and all material collected by the I.O. during investigation and then after considering entire evidence whether recorded by him or by I.O., should come to the conclusion and then he should pass appropriate order.With these observations the revision is disposed of.Revision Disposed of as above. *******