JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 21.6.2007 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar took cognizance against the petitioner but at the time of taking cognizance, the reasons given by the Investigating Officer for negative report were not considered and in very casual manner, the cognizance order has been passed. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order impugned, I am of the opinion, that at the time of passing order for taking cognizance against the petitioner, the basic requirement is to consider the reasons upon which negative report is submitted by the Investigating Officer so also to give reasons for disagreement with the ground given by the Investigating Officer for filing F.R. but in this case, reasons for disagreement have not been given by the trial Court at the time of taking cognizance. 4. In this view of the matter, while quashing the order dated 21.6.2007 passed by C.J.M., Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 223/2007 and order dated 25.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1 Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision No. 114/2007 filed by petitioner Ajaipal, this misc. petition filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is partly allowed and case is remitted to the concerned Magistrate for passing fresh reasoned order after taking into consideration the grounds upon which Investigating Officer filed negative report in this case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this matter. The record of this case may be sent back to the concerned Magistrate.Petition Partly allowed. *******