JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.01.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Laxmangarh, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 302, 328, 201 and 120-B IPC and declared the petitioners as absconders and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 26.01.1999, Chandra Ram submitted a report at Police Station, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, wherein he claimed that his son Harlal was married to Vimla, the daughter of Jawahar Singh. During the wedlock, they had a son. He further claims that three days ) ago, he had gone to Khatu Shyamji. He came back home on 26.01.1999. As he was passing in front of the hospital at Sikar, he was informed by Hari Singh Katrathal that last night his son expired in the hospital. He inquired in the hospital where panchayatnama proceeding took place. When he reached home, he came to know that on 25.01.1999, Vimla, alongwith her son, left for i her parental home with her brother, Kailash. When Harlal came to know about this fact, he took Mahaveer, the driver in order to reach his in-laws house at Yalsar. Mahaveer dropped Harlal at Yalsar and came back. Chandra Ram suspected that Jawahara, his wife, Shanti and his daughter, Vimla administered poison to Harlal due to which he expired at about 12:30 in the night. He further stated that Jawahara Ram did not inform the complainant or any of his family members about the sudden death of Harlal. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR was chalked out for offences under Sections 302,328, 201 and 120-B IPC. However, after a thorough investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet only against Jawahara Ram, but did not submit any charge-sheet against the present petitioners. It is pertinent to note that in the charge-sheet submitted against Jawahara Ram, the police did not claim that the investigation against the present petitioners is kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. After the trial, vide judgment dated 19.09.1994, Jawahara Ram was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. Since Jawahara Ram was aggrieved by the said judgment, he filed a criminal appeal before this Court, registered as D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 473/1994. Vide judgment dated 24.02.1996, this Court acquitted Jawahara Ram of all the allegations. 3. Since Jawahara Ram was aggrieved by the said judgment, he filed a criminal appeal before this Court, registered as D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 473/1994. Vide judgment dated 24.02.1996, this Court acquitted Jawahara Ram of all the allegations. 3. Subsequently, the complainant Chandra Ram filed a criminal misc. petition, registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1375/1998, wherein he claimed that the police had kept the investigation pending against the present petitioners and had declared them, as absconders. Therefore, he prayed that this Court should direct the investigation to be completed. Vide judgment dated 15.02.2000, this Court directed the police to complete its investigation against the present petitioners of Bhima Ram, Bhagwana, Mahaveer, Smt. Patasi and Chandra Ban on 17.12.2000 and submitted the charge-sheet on 02.01.2001 against the present petitioners. Vide order dated 02.01.2001, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the present petitioners and committed the case to the Sessions Court. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Vijayant Nirvan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in the criminal misc. petition filed by Chandra Ram, he had cleverly misled this Court into believing that the police had kept the investigation pending against the present petitioner and they were declared to be absconders. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the charge-sheet filed against Jawahara Ram in order to buttress his contention that in the said charge-sheet it was clearly claimed by the police that the charge-sheet is only against Jawahara Ram and not against the present petitioners. Secondly, despite the submission of the charge-sheet , no protest petition was filed by Chandra Ram. Moreover, even during the course of the trial, neither the prosecution, nor the complainant filed an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for issuance of process against the present petitioners. It is only after Chandra Ram was acquitted vide judgment dated 24.02.1996, and after having waited for two years and nine months that in the year 1998, a frivolous criminal misc. petition was filed and this Court was misled. Fourthly, the investigation has been reopened only because of the direction given by this Court. However, the direction was given by this Court under a misconception due to the fraud played by Chandra Ram, the complainant. Thus, the investigation is without any legal basis. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance without considering all the aspects of the case. Fourthly, the investigation has been reopened only because of the direction given by this Court. However, the direction was given by this Court under a misconception due to the fraud played by Chandra Ram, the complainant. Thus, the investigation is without any legal basis. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance without considering all the aspects of the case. Hence, even the cognizance is misplaced. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. The learned Public Prosecutor has also supported the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that facing a criminal trial is not an easy task. Therefore, before an investigation begins, the investigating agency has to be very careful in seeing whether investigation is even possible or not. Unfortunately, in the Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1375/1998, this Court was misled to believe, that when the charge-sheet was filed against Jawahara Ram, the investigation against the present petitioners was kept under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. and that they were declared as absconders. However, a bare perusal of the charge-sheet (Annex. 1) clearly reveals that the charge-sheet was filed only against Jawahara Ram and the police did not claim that they were keeping the investigation pending against the petitioners. Therefore, although the petitioners were named in the FIR, after a thorough investigation, the police had submitted the negative F.R. in favour of the present petitioners. Despite the submission of the negative F.R., the complainant, Chandra Ram did not file a protest petition. Moreover, even during the course of the trial, neither the Public Prosecutor, nor the complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.Rc. for issuance of process against the present petitioners. It is only after Jawahara Ram was acquitted by this Court that Chandra Ram filed a frivolous and misleading petition before this Court. Under a misconception, this Court directed investigation to be completed. Had this Court known the truth that in fact the investigation was not kept pending against the present petitioners, the fact that the petitioners were not absconders, that no protest petition was filed, or that no application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had been filed during the course of the trial, obviously, this Court would not have directed the investigation to be concluded by the police. It is equally unfortunate that the learned Public Prosecutor could not bring it to the notice of the Coordinate Bench that in fact no investigation was kept pending against the present petitioners. Since a fraud has been placed on this Court, the judgment passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1375/1998 would unravel itself. It is a non-est order. Therefore, the investigation carried out by the police is clearly unsustainable. Even if a- charge-sheet has been filed, and a cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate obviously, when the foundation of the investigation falls, so wold the cognizance order. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.01.2001 and in allowing this petition.Petition allowed. *******