JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal revision petition the accused petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Act (for short the trial Court') whereby he allowed the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. by which he took cognizance under sections 498A and 304B IPC against the accused petitioners, and the trial Court has also summoned the accused petitioners through bailable warrants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 71/07 was submitted by the complainant against the accused petitioners for the offence under sections 498A, 304B IPC at P.S. Bakani (District Jhalawar). 3. The police after investigation submitted challan against the accused persons in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar against Vishnu Prasad. 4. The prosecution in support of its case produced 15 witnesses and certain documents were exhibited. 5. On 19.04.2008, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. before the court concerned stating therein that a case under section 304B and 498A IPC is made out against the accused petitioners and cognizance should be taken against them. 6. The trial court after hearing allowed the application moved by the Public Prosecutor under section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 13.05.2008 and took cognizance against the accused petitioners under sections 498A and 304B IPC as also the accused petitioners have been summoned through bailable warrants. 7. The accused petitioners feeling aggrieved with the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by the trial court has preferred instant petition before this Court. 8. Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court has erred in allowing the application moved under section 319 Cr.P.C. and has wrongly taken cognizance against the petitioners. The police after thorough investigation had come to the conclusion that no case was made out against the petitioners and charge-sheet was filed against accused Vishnu Prasad. Thus, filing of the application by the Public Prosecutor under section 319 Cr.P.C. after completion of the prosecution evidence is wholly illegal. The trial court ought to have exercised jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. in a very cautious manner while deciding such application. The accused petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case and they have nothing to do with the alleged incident. Thus, the trial Court has committed an illegality and irregularity in passing the order impugned. 9. Per contra Mr. The accused petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case and they have nothing to do with the alleged incident. Thus, the trial Court has committed an illegality and irregularity in passing the order impugned. 9. Per contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor controverted the afore-mentioned submissions and submits that the trial court has rightly passed the order impugned. 10. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. 11. From the bare perusal of the material available on record it is clear that the trial Court has not properly considered the material available on record and it has not applied the judicial mind while passing the order impugned. 12. In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar is quashed and set-aside. The trial Court is directed to re-hear again the matter on the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the trial Court after hearing comes to the conclusion that charges are made out against the accused petitioners, then he shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. STAYIn view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application stands disposed of.Petition Allowed-Case Dismissed. *******