Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-By filing the present petition under Section 482, CrPC the petitioner has prayed for quashing order of taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar dated 19.02.2004 as well as order dated 010.2004 passed by the revisional Court. 2. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that FIR was filed against them before Police Station, Lalgarh Jatan by complainant Gordhan Lal, Non-petitioner No. 2 on 09.03.2001. After investigation, the police filed FR and initiated proceedings against the complainant under Section 182, CrPC. The FR, so filed by the police was accepted on 14.01.2002 against which order the complainant preferred revision petition before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar. The revisional Court set aside the order passed by the Court below accepting the FR filed by the police by order dated 11.08.2003 with the direction to hear the complainant and his witnesses and, thereafter, to pass appropriate orders. 3. After remand as above, the trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200, CrPC and also recorded statements of the complainants witnesses under Section 202, CrPC and proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 147, IPC, read with Section 3, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 19.02.2004. Against order dated 19.02.2004, the petitioners filed revision petition which was dismissed by order dated 010.2004 by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that once FR was given against the complaint by the police and the same was accepted then there was no ground for taking cognizance against the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner contended that the trial Court, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202, CrPC took cognizance because prima facie case was made out against the petitioners and, therefore, there is no ground for interference under section 482, CrPC. 5. I have also perused the record of the case. After remand, the trial Court recorded statements of the complainant under Section 200, CrPC and also recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 202, CrPC which was done in pursuance of the directions passed by the revisional Court and, upon recording of the statements under Sections 200 and 202, CrPC, sufficient material came up on record for the trial Court to proceed to take cognizance against the petitioners. The earlier order accepting the FR was set aside by the revisional Court and, therefore, no legal sanctity can be attached to that order. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned. There is no force in the present petition. 6. The petition moved under Section 482, CrPC is dismissed.