JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order dated 9.1.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg whereby cognizance has been taken against them of the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC against the petitioners and orders which was sent for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation a charge sheet was filed only against the accused Omveer who is is husband of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 then filed a fresh complaint on the same facts against the petitioners and ten others under Sections 468-A, 406 IPC. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg after recording statements under Sections 200, 202 Cr.P.C. passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC against the petitioners. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have filed this revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public prosecutor. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in spite of service of the notice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the offence on the police report and, therefore, he has no power to take cognizance of the same offence on the private complaint filed subsequently as taking of cognizance of the same offence twice is not permissible. 5. Learned public prosecutor is not able to support the impugned order. 6. A plain reading of Section 190 Cr.P.C. shows that under Section 190 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. The cognizance on the basis of the police report is taken when the Magistrate applies his mind to the facts contained in the police report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and in the case of a private complaint, the stage of taking cognizance comes when the Magistrate embarks upon the enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Once the Magistrate takes the cognizance of the offence either on the basis of the private complaint or on the police report, it is not permissible subsequently to take cognizance of the same offence again. So far as those persons against whom charge sheet has not been filed, they can be arrayed as "accused persons" in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. when some evidence or material is brought on record in course of trial. 7. In the instant case, the Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance of the offence for the second time which is not permissible under law. 8. In this view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 9.1.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg is set aside. However, this judgment will not prevent the Magistrate to pass an appropriate order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners if he feels satisfied by the evidence produced before him in the case instituted on the police report.Petition allowed. *******