JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant- respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the competent court stating that he along with petitioner No.1 was doing the business activities in partnership along with one Raghuveer at Assam but due to some dispute he dissolved the partnership. It was alleged that on 12.10.2008 the accused petitioners entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted him. The said complaint was sent for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon a case was registered and investigation commenced and police filed a final negative report. Thereupon, the complainant preferred a protest petition and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate , Bhadra, District Hanumangarh vide its order dated 06.06.2009 took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under section 452 and 323/34 IPC. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned revisional court, who dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have preferred this cri.misc. Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned trial court dated 06.06.2009 and that of the revisional court dated 22.04.2011 is clearly an abuse of the process of law and per se it is illegal, perverse and improper. Therefore, both the orders require to be set aside and the misc. Petition may be allowed so as to quash the proceedings of the learned trial court dated 06.06.2009. 4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 06.06.2009 and 22.04.2011 passed by trial court as well as the revisional court, respectively. 5. The learned trial court vide order dated 06.06.2009 ordered that the complainant Sher Singh and his witnesses Devilal and Satveer deposed during the course of evidence recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. corroborating the fact of commission of the offence and on the basis of this evidence, the learned trial court ordered to take cognizance against the present petitioners under section 452 and 323/34 IPC. The revisional court also ordered to dismiss the revision petition on the same ground that on the basis of the statement of Sher Singh and other witnesses, there was sufficient material for the trial court to take cognizance against the present petitioners. 6. It is settled position of law that even on the slightest piece of evidence if it is available on record, the court can take cognizance, on the basis of the material available on record and such evidence requires to be appreciated and adjudicated by the court after trial. Looking to this consistent principle pronounced by the Hon'ble apex court and also this court, and the principle that inherent powers of this court should be exercised in the rarest cases, where there is complete abuse of the process of law, in the present case, it cannot be said that there is an abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed and the order of the learned trial court as well as that of the revisional court are maintained.Petition Dismissed. *******