JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - Vide this petition under section 482 Cr.RC. the order dated 5.10.1998, taking cognizance against the accused petitioners under sections 323, 325 and 451 IPC and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar, dated 2.3.2000, upholding the order dated 5.10.1998, have been challenged. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the complainant non-petitioner no.2 Rameshwar Lai submitted a written report at Police Station Laxmangarh on 15.6.1998, against the five accused persons with the averments that at about 10 a.m. on 13.6.1998 all the accused persons armed with lathies entered his house and gave a beating to him resulting into fracture of hand. Case under sections 147,451,341, 323 IPC was registered and after investigation challan under sections 323, 325, 451 was filed only against one accused Kajod. The complainant filed protest petition in the Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, conducted enquiry as provided under sections 200,202 Cr.RC. and vide order dated 5.10.1998 took cognizance against the four accused persons as mentioned here-in-above. Revision filed against this order was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar, vide order dated 2.3.2000. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused petitioners contends that the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the evidence collected during investigation and thus passed the impugned order without application of mind. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of this court in Dalip Singh v. Smt. Magan reported in H.C.C., 1995, 521 . Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Rajasthan ( 1994(1) WLN 585 ) and Vimlesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (1994 (1) WLN 589) . 4. Learned Public prosecutor and learned counsel for the N.P No. 2 contended that there is no legal ground to interfere with the orders of courts below coming to a concurrent finding and all the material available on the record was considered. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. In all the three judgments of this court cited above, it has been held that the material submitted by Police i.e. evidence collected by the Police during the investigation should be considered by the Magistrate while taking cognizance. In order dated 5.10.1998, though it is not specifically stated that the evidence collected during the investigation was considered but it is mentioned that the file, documents and statements of the witnesses were also perused. In order dated 5.10.1998, though it is not specifically stated that the evidence collected during the investigation was considered but it is mentioned that the file, documents and statements of the witnesses were also perused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also passed a detailed order in revision. It is significant to mention here that the only objection taken in the revision was that the order dated 5.10.1998 is not a reasoned order and this argument was not accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. No such objection was raised that the evidence during the investigation was not considered. In view of the above discussion. I find no merit in this petition. Hence the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******