JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 7.5.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Revision No. 165/2002 whereby the order of taking cognizance by the learned trial Court vide order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in case No. 629/01 has been set aside. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case, police after investigation submitted Final Report finding that no case was made out at all and while taking cognizance in the matter, learned Magistrate did not utter a word about final report, therefore, the order of taking cognizance requires to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that revisional Court finding that there was no defamation and there was no material available on record, therefore, order passed by the learned trial Court was set aside. 4. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as learned revisional Court. 5. At the very out set it may-be observed here that at the time of taking cognizance courts are required to take into consideration the material collected during the course by the investigating agency. It is also settled position of law that prima facie there should be satisfaction of the concerned Court on the basis of material laced before it that case is made out for taking cognizance. It is also the settled position of law that at the time of taking cognizance it is not requirement of law that case will result into conviction. 6. In view of the above settled position of law, one thing emerges out is that learned trial Court has not stated even a word about F.R. Submitted by the police on a complaint filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station for investigation. In the above background, I, do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case that what was material collected by the investigating agency. It is for the learned trial Court to consider the material which was collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. 7. In the above background, I, do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case that what was material collected by the investigating agency. It is for the learned trial Court to consider the material which was collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. 7. I am satisfied that this revision petition requires to be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the both the courts below are required to be set aside and parties are required to be heard afresh in the matter. 8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order 7.5.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Revision No. 165/2002 and order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Cr. Case No. 629/01 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court to hear both the sides and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The learned trial Court shall be not influenced from any observation made by this Court or by the revisional Court. The trial Court shall consider the matter independently. The parties are directed to appear before the Court personally or through their advocates on 16th' July, 2008. In case parties do not appear on that date before the trial Court then trial Court shall be free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******