JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition tinder Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.3.2005 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities, Cases), Sikar whereby the learned Judge ordered to summon the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 447 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") in Special Case No. 37/2004. 2. The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on the written report filed by non-petitioner No. 2-complainant-Sita Ram F.I.R. No. 37/2004 was registered against some persons including the present petitioners for offences under Sections 447, 147 I.P.C. and for offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Act and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against only one person, but no charge sheet was filed against the present-petitioners. The learned trial Court ordered to frame charge against accused-Shri Hanumanaram against whom charge sheet was filed by the police for offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. and for offences under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(x) of the Act and trial against that accused commenced. During the course of trial oral statements of as many as seven witnesses were recorded and some documents were also exhibited. At that stage of the proceedings on behalf of the non-petitioner-complainant an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 25.2.2005 and by impugned order dated 11.3.2005 the application was allowed and the learned trial Court ordered to take cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and for offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioners are before this Court by way of this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. At the time of hearing non appeared on behalf of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner submitted that during the course of trial against the present-accused-Shri Hanumanaram statements of several witnesses were recorded and some documents were also exhibited and the learned trial Court taking into account the evidence available on record under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. rightly took cognizance against the present petitioners for above offences. 4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner submitted that during the course of trial against the present-accused-Shri Hanumanaram statements of several witnesses were recorded and some documents were also exhibited and the learned trial Court taking into account the evidence available on record under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. rightly took cognizance against the present petitioners for above offences. It was also submitted that if the Court finds from the evidence collected during trial cognizance may also be taken against such person who may be tried alongwith present accused, then the Court has jurisdiction to do so.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has relied upon Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008 (3) CJ (Raj.) 1296 , Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy & Anr. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 773 . 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the non-petitioner and also gone through the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law cited on behalf of the non-petitioner. 6. It is well settled that if from the evidence collected during trial, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence available on record so as to take cognizance against such a person who may be tried alongwith the present accused, the Court is competent to take cognizance against such person also even if after investigation charge-sheet was not filed against such a person. In the present case although petitioners were also named as accused in the F.I.R. filed by the non-petitioner but after investigation charge-sheet was not filed against them. I find that there is sufficient evidence oral as well as documentary available on record so as to hold at this stage of the proceedings that there is likelihood that present petitioners may be convicted for the offences for which cognizance has been taken against them by the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and also the relevant provisions of law has rightly concluded that there is sufficient ground so as to take cognizance against the present petitioners. In my view no fault can be found in the impugned order. 7. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition filed on behalf of the petitioner being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******