JUDGMENT 1. - To challenge the order dated 7.11.207 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pali, rejecting an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C., this revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that at the instance of the petitioner a case was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Pali. As per the averments contained in the information Satu Ram s/o Budha Ram, Budha Ram s/o Pannaji, Kishna Ram s/o Budha Ram, Smt. Paka w/o Budha Ram, Deva Ram s/o Pannaji, and Raju s/o Deva Ram forcibly taken away niece of the complainant alongwith them in a jeep. Acting upon the information received, investigation was initiated and the accused persons were arrested. However, ultimately only Satu Ram and Shrawan were charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC. A negative final report was filed relating to the remaining persons viz. Budha Ram, Kishna Ram, Smt. Paka, Deva Ram and Raju. 3. An application thereafter was filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before learned Magistrate for taking cognizance against the non-petitioners but that came to be rejected by the order impugned. Learned Judicial Magistrate while rejecting the application held that the investigation made by the police cannot be treated unreliable or bias and also that the statements given by Rekha under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be held as a last truth at this stage. 4. While assailing validity of the order the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the specific allegation is made against the respondents No.2 to 6 in the first information report itself and prosecutrix Rekha also in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in quite unambiguous terms made specific allegations against the respondents No.2 to 6, therefore, cognizance should have been taken against those persons by learned Magistrate and as such the order impugned is bad. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced and also examined the record available. 6. In police report the investigating agency has given all details relating to the investigation and choose to file charge sheet against two persons only. The police did not find anything against the respondents No.2 to 6. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced and also examined the record available. 6. In police report the investigating agency has given all details relating to the investigation and choose to file charge sheet against two persons only. The police did not find anything against the respondents No.2 to 6. It is true that in the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix Rekha has made certain specific allegations against the respondents, however, those are just contrary to the earlier statements given by her under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate, while rejecting the application under Section 190 Cr.P.C., left it open for adding any other person in the array of the accused persons if any evidence comes during trial against them. This power is available to the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. On examination of record I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate objectively considered the police report and the documents annexed thereto and rightly rejected the application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is having no merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, it shall be open for the trial court to add any person in the array of accused persons as per the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. if material come on record against those persons during trial.Revision petition dismissed. *******