JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar in Criminal Revision No. 90/2004 & 119/2004 whereby the cognizance order dated 16.04.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Alwar taking cognizance against the accused non petitioners have been set aside. 2. For the disposal of the present petition the facts in brief are that on a complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, the complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. to the concerned Police Station. On submitting final report by the police, the learned Magistrate on recording statement of the petitioner and her witnesses under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance in the matter for offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 348, 392/149 IPC. The non petitioners feeling aggrieved with the order of taking cognizance preferred a revision petition before the Revision Court which came to be decided on 11.08.2004 by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of-Atrocities Act) cases whereby thn revision petition was allowed and protest petition filed by the e etitioner has been rejected and F.R. submitted by the police has been .. cepted. Hence, this petition has been filed. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case, the position of law is almost settled on the point that at the time of taking cognizance the material collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation is required to be gone into and normally the Courts are not required to go deep into the matter and scan the evidence. It is also contended that while taking cognizance prima facie satisfaction of the court is essential. It is also contended that it is not required to be seen whether accused will be ultimately convicted in relation to alleged offences. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that in the instant case, the learned Magistrate in fact did not properly appreciated the material collected by the I.O. while submitting the final report in the case. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me. 6. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that in the instant case, the learned Magistrate in fact did not properly appreciated the material collected by the I.O. while submitting the final report in the case. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me. 6. After having considered the submissions made before me, I find that neither the learned Revisional Court nor the learned trial Court properly, appreciated the material available on the file. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case because that may effect either side of the case, I deem it proper to set aside both the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and remit the case back to the learned trial Court to hear both sides afresh and thereafter, decide the matter in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and both the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court to hear both side afresh and decide the same is accordance with law. 8. The parties are directed to present themselves before the concerned Court on 16.07.2008 either personally or through their counsels, in case the parties or their advocates remain absent on that date, the Court may pass appropriate order In accordance with law.Consequently, the cri. revision petition stands partly allowed with above observations.Revision allowed as above. *******