Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. On a report by the complai-nant, Sunaina Devi the police made investigation and thereafter submitted a charge-sheet against Ramji Pandey and Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Applicants No. 1 and 2, and gave a clean chit to the applicants No. 3 and 4, namely, Malti Devi and Sulekha Devi. The complainant submitted a protest petition and made a request to the court that before accepting the final report in relation to Malti Devi and Sulekha Devi, the complainant be heard. It appears that the protest petition submitted on 6.12.2000 was not kept with the records by the concerned clerk of the court and the case was heard on 13.12.2000 instead of 15.12.2000 which was given as a date of hearing to the complainant, the learned trial Court accepted the final report against Malti Devi and Sulekha Devi and took cognizance against the applicants Ramji Pandey and Dhar-mendra Kumar Pandey for offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. On 15.12.2000 the complainant through her counsel appeared in the court and brought the factual position to the notice of the court. The court treated the pro-test petition as a complaint and after recording verification statement took cognizance of offence punishable under Secs. 498-A, 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against all the applicants. The applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2001 have come to this Court, inter alia, submitting that once the cognizance was taken against Ramji Pandey and Dharmendra Kumar Pandey even for a lesser offence or for a distinct offence, the court would not be justified in taking cognizance against applicants No. 1 and 2. For the applicants No. 3 and 4 it is contended that in view of the police report, the court was unjustified in taking cognizance against applicants No. 3 and 4. 3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2/complainant submits that the manner in which the police made the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet for offence puni-shable under Sec. 306, IPC though the facts were clearly establishing a charge under Sec. 304-B, IPC the court below was justified in taking cognizance of the offences. He submits that the order passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity. 4. He submits that the order passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity. 4. During the course of argu-ments learned counsel for the appli-cants submitted that the perusal of Sec. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would make it clear that if the Court has taken cognizance for any offence then the complaint will merge in that police charge-sheet and cannot be tried independently. According to him when the police has already filed a charge-sheet and the court has taken cognizance for offence under Sec. 306, IPC then the court had no jurisdiction of taking cognizance under a different Section. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other side sub-mits that the word  offence is to be read as antonym to the word act. According to him a particular act may constitute different offences puni-shable under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Sec. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: "210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (herein-after referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Sec. 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magis-trate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the com-plaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stated by him, in accordance with the provi-sions of this Code." 5. According to Sub-sec. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the com-plaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stated by him, in accordance with the provi-sions of this Code." 5. According to Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 210, Cr.P.C. when a comp-laint is filed and it appears to the Magistrate that in investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings and call for a report from the concerned police. The Magistrate has to stay the proceedings in a case where it is brought to this notice that an investigation is under progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him. 6. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 210, Cr.P.C. provides that when a report is made by the Investigating Officer under Sec. 173, Cr.P.C. and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate then the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the comp-laint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. A fair perusal of Sub-sec. (2) of Section 210 would make it clear that when the Magistrate takes cognizance of any offence which is also an offence or a subject-matter of the complaint and the accused in both the matters are the same then the private complaint shall merge in the charge-sheet. 7. Sub-sec. (3), which would in fact control the case where the accused and offences are different, is the material provision. According to Sub-sec. (3) the police report does not relate to a particular accused or particular offence then the Magistrate shall proceed with the inquiry or trial. Sub-sec. 7. Sub-sec. (3), which would in fact control the case where the accused and offences are different, is the material provision. According to Sub-sec. (3) the police report does not relate to a particular accused or particular offence then the Magistrate shall proceed with the inquiry or trial. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 210 would make it crystal clear that if the accused persons are different and the offences are different in relation to which the court has not taken cogni-zance on the police report then the Magistrate would be justified in taking cognizance against such accu-sed or in relation to that particular offence for which the court had not taken cognizance on the police report. 8. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance of a particular offence then the court cannot take cognizance in relation to a higher offence, if accepted, it would lead to judicial anarchism and would give rise to police atrocities. In a given case of Sec. 307, IPC (attempt to murder) the police may register under Sec. 324, IPC in relation to a particular accused then even on a complaint with the positive evidence against same accused, the court would not be able to take cogni-zance for a higher/larger offence. Sub-sec. (3) in fact is a complete answer to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appli-cants. One should not confuse between a wrong act and an offence. A wrong or an act becomes an offence if the said act is made punishable under some statutory provision. 9. The court had taken cogni-zance for offence punishable under Sec. 306, IPC which relates to an abatement of suicide while Sec. 304-B, IPC refers to a dowry death. The ingredients of the offence are different. The proof and the mode of proof would be different. The punish-ments are different. For Sec. 306 there is no presumption while for Sec. 304-B, there is a statutory presumption. Under such circums-tances, it cannot be said that if the court had taken cognizance for offence punishable under Sec. 306, IPC it could not take cognizance under Sec. 304-B, IPC. 10. So far as applicants No. 3 and 4 are concerned, after going through the records, I am unable to hold that the court below was unjustified in taking cognizance against them. 11. 10. So far as applicants No. 3 and 4 are concerned, after going through the records, I am unable to hold that the court below was unjustified in taking cognizance against them. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, submitted that if the court had taken cognizance under Sec. 306, IPC and the evidence on record was justifying a charge-sheet under Sec. 304-B then the court could take cognizance at any time and under such circumstances cogni-zance under Sec. 304-B, IPC was not required to be taken. In the opinion of this Court, the argument in an argument of frustration. It is worth rejection at this stage. If the police does not find that the offence is made out under Sec. 304-B, IPC and the complaint prima facie shows commission of an offence under Sec. 304-B, IPC then nothing would prevent the Magistrate from taking the cognizance at this stage and leave the matter to be considered at the time of the charge hearing. The argument is rejected. 12. I find no reason to interfere in the matter. The petition is dismissed.