JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 8.5.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar in Regular Criminal Case No. 30/2005 whereby cognizance for offences under sections 376, 323 and 120-B. I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioner. 3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that non-petitioner complainant Smt. Chhagan Kanwar sent a written report by post to the Court below in which serious allegations were made against four persons including the present petitioner for rape etc. and that report was sent by the Court to the police station concerned upon which F.I.R. No. 45/03 was registered for offences under sections 376 and 323. I.P.C. The police after investigation found the allegation baseless and arrived at a conclusion that no such incident occurred and the prosecutrix has levelled allegation of rape on the instance of one Shri Gheesaram Meena. Consequently, the police filed negative Final Report (F.R.) before the Court below. The non-petitioner-complainant filed protest petition in respect of negative final report and statements of four witnesses were recorded under section 202, Cr.P.C. and the Court below took cognizance for the offences under sections 376 and 323, I.P.C. against four persons including the present petitioner vide order dated 17.2.2005. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order dated 17.2.2005 before Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track). Sikar and the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 16.9.2005 set aside the order of cognizance dated 17.2.2005 and it directed the Court below to reconsider the matter in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 202 Cr.P.C. in compliance of the order of the Revisional Court, the Court below recorded the statement of non-petitioner under section 200. Cr.P.C. and after considering the material available on record by passing impugned order dated 8.5.2006 the Court below again took cognizance against the same four persons including the present petitioner for of- fences under sections 376 and 323, I.P.C. read with section 120-B. I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this petition. 4. Cr.P.C. and after considering the material available on record by passing impugned order dated 8.5.2006 the Court below again took cognizance against the same four persons including the present petitioner for of- fences under sections 376 and 323, I.P.C. read with section 120-B. I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this petition. 4. Assailing the impugned order the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:- (i) During investigation police collected oral as well as documentary evidence, but for taking cognizance the Court below considered evidence collected under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. only whereas the legal requirement is that in such a case for taking cognizance evidence collected during investigation has also to be considered, therefore, the order of cognizance is illegal and liable to be set aside. (ii) The Court below was obliged to assign reasons why the evidence collected during investigation could not be believed, but in the present case the Court below has assigned no reasons differing from the conclusion arrived at by the police. (iii) Although, the word "cognizance" has not been defined in Criminal Procedure Code, but it is well settled that for taking cognizance for an offence, the Court has to apply its mind to the evidence available on record so as to make a judicial order of taking "cognizance", but in the present case it does not appear that the Court below applied its mind for taking cognizance. It is so by the reason that the impugned order dated 8.5.2006 is a composite order not only for taking cognizance but also summoning the present petitioner and three other persons as accused whereas legally cognizance is taken for an offence as soon as the Magistrate proceeds to make an enquiry under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. Taking of cognizance by way of impugned order dated 8.5.2006 means cognizance was taken on the basis of evidence collected under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and not upon the complaint or the protest petition. (iv) It is a admitted fact that order of cognizance dated 17.2.2005 was set aside by the Revisional Court vide order dated 16.9.2005 and thereafter, there was no order of cognizance in existence, but even then the Court below without further taking cognizance proceeded to record statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. and at the end of enquiry by passing impugned order not only took cognizance for the offences under sections 376. 323 and 120-B, I.P.C., but also by the same order summoned the petitioner and three other persons as accused. Without there being an order of cognizance no person can be summoned as an accused. (v) In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if for any reason this Hon'ble Court comes to a conclusion that there is no ground so as to interfere in the impugned order, the Court may please convert the warrant of arrest into bailable warrant as it is well settled legal position that in the first instance the accused must be summoned through bailable warrant and not by a warrant of arrest. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sampat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1993)1 SCC 561 , Karan Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2010 (3) WLC (Raj) 246 , Shobharam v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) Cr LR (Raj) 1156 , State of Rajasthan v. Sohariiya, 2007 (2) CR LR (Raj) 1157 , Jahangir Khan and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2007 (2) Cr LR (Raj) 1068 , Sanvarmal v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) Cr LR (raj) 1069 Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008 (1) WLC (SC) Cri 34 = AIR 2008 SC 251 , Bharat Singh v. State o/ Rajasthan and another, 2008 (2) Cr LR (Raj) 1650 , Santra Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (2) Cr LR (Raj) 1652 , Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2006 (10 CR LR (Raj)489 , Fateh Lai v. Smi. Tulsi Bat and others, 2006 (1) CR LR (Raj) 491 , Gopal Sharma and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2005 (1) RDD 4197 (Raj) , and Jaishiv Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (1) CLR 1 (Raj). . 6. Tulsi Bat and others, 2006 (1) CR LR (Raj) 491 , Gopal Sharma and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2005 (1) RDD 4197 (Raj) , and Jaishiv Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (1) CLR 1 (Raj). . 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner-complainant has submitted that the learned Court below after considering the evidence available on record in the right perspective by way of a reasoned order has taken cognizance, which requires no interference by this Court. It was also submitted that no fault can be found in the impugned order only on some technical errors committed by the Trial Court, unless some prejudice is shown by the petitioner, but In the present case no such prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. It was also submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance only prima facie has to be seen whether sufficient evidence is available on record so as to take cognizance for an offence and to summon any person as an accused. It was also submitted that for taking cognizance the learned Court below has considered the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202. Cr.P.C., as well as the statement of non-petitioner recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. during investigation. In support of their submissions, they relied upon H.S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), AIR 1980 SC 1883 . Tara Chand and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr LR (Raj)7 , Kedar Nath and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cr LR (raj) 613 and F.A. Poncha v. M. Meherjee, 1995 Cri LJ 352 . 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of respective parties 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 parties. 8. I am of the considered view that there is no such illegality. irregularity or perversity in the impugned order so as to interfere in it. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance for an offence only prima facie has to be seen whether there is sufficient material as to take cognizance for an offence and at this stage of the proceedings meticulous analysis of the evidence available on record is not required. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance for an offence only prima facie has to be seen whether there is sufficient material as to take cognizance for an offence and at this stage of the proceedings meticulous analysis of the evidence available on record is not required. It is also well settled that the Court is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the police in the form of final report and Court even on the negative final report can take cognizance for offence, if it finds that there is sufficient evidence available on record. It is also open to the Court to rely back upon the original complaint filed by the complainant and conduct enquiry under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and if the Court comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed further, it may summon a person as an accused. This enquiry can also be conducted upon a protest petition filed by the complainant against the negative final report submitted by the police. Although, it is essential that for summoning a person as an accused not only the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202. Cr.P.C. but also evidence collected by the police has also to be considered, but in the present case it cannot be said that the Court below has totally ignored this legal requirement. From the impugned order, it is revealed that the statement of non-petitioner recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. during investigation was also considered. So far as the submission made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the impugned order dated 8.5.2006 is a composite order and the order of cognizance and order of summoning the petitioner and other persons was passed at the same time, I am of the considered view that this objection is very much technical in nature. Although, the Court below has used the word "cognizance" in the last part of the order, but that does not mean that at the initial stage of the proceeding cognizance was not taken and Court below without takin cognizance proceeded to record statements under sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code. Although, the Court below has used the word "cognizance" in the last part of the order, but that does not mean that at the initial stage of the proceeding cognizance was not taken and Court below without takin cognizance proceeded to record statements under sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code. I am of the view that upon protest petition being filed by the non-petitioner as soon as the Court below decided to hold enquiry by recording statements under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken and only after that the Court below conducted enquiry under the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. The Court below by considering the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and also statement of non-petitioner under section 164, Cr.P.C. decided to summon the petitioner and three other persons as accused. Merely because the Court below in the operative part of the impugned order has used the word "taking cognizance", it cannot be said that the impugned order being a composite order is a clear instance of non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside on this ground only. Similarly, this contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is also not tenable that when order of cognizance dated 17.2.2005 was set aside by the Revisional Court by way of order dated 16.9.2005. the Court below was not competent to pass second order of taking cognizance. This contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is self contradictory. When the first order of cognizance has been set aside by the Revisional Court there remained no order of cognizance in existence. After remand, the Court below in compliance of the order of Revisional Court proceeded to record statement of non-petitioner under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. As soon as the Court below decided to record the statement of non-petitioner under section 200, Cr.P.C., the Court below applied its mind to the material available on record and it took cognizance for an offence and, therefore, it cannot be said that second order of cognizance was made. 9. As soon as the Court below decided to record the statement of non-petitioner under section 200, Cr.P.C., the Court below applied its mind to the material available on record and it took cognizance for an offence and, therefore, it cannot be said that second order of cognizance was made. 9. So far as the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the first instance warrant of arrest should not have been issued against the petitioner for ensuring his attendance before the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami's case (supra) has held that there cannot be any strait-jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper with or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided. Thus, if a person is an accused of heinous crime the Court may at the first instance also issue warrant of arrest for his attendance. In the present case as the Court below has taken cognizance for a heinous offence like rape punishable under section 376, I.P.C. It cannot be said that the Court below has wrongly exercised its discretion. The net result is that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court. 10. Consequently, the petition being devoid of any substance is hereby. dismissed at the admission stage itself.Petition Dismissed. *******