JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. In the instant case, petitioner has challenged the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate dated 6.1.2005 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 497, 498 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cognizance has been taken and the petitioner has come on the basis of the statement allegedly recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Kavita in a case arising out of a F.I.R. No. 270/2004. It is submitted that the cognizance could not be taken against the petitioner on the basis of alleged statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded in a case other than the present one. 3. I have perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the revisional Court dated 4.10.2006. From Para 7 of the order of the revisional Court, it is clear that even apart from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is evidence of Sajjan Kumar the complainant in the case which has been relied upon. 4. In view of the fact that apart from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is another set of evidence which has been taken into account, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order as there is other set of evidence for proceeding against the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******