JUDGMENT : A.K. Pathak, J.— (Oral) 1. Petitioners are relatives of husband of complainant-Smt. Chanchal in FIR No. 154/2011 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC of Police Station Madhu Vihar. Complainant had named the petitioners in the FIR as the persons who had treated her with cruelty. Case was investigated by the police and thereafter charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was filed. Petitioners were not sent up to face trial. Their names were mentioned in column no. 2 of the charge-sheet. 2. Vide order dated 23rd March, 2012, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on perusal of charge-sheet and documents annexed therewith took cognizance of the offence and ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. 3. That is how petitioners are before this Court by way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that after completing the investigation, on the basis of material collected during the investigation, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that no sufficient material had come on record for proceeding against the petitioners, thus, kept them in column no. 2 of the charge-sheet. Accordingly, Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to summon the petitioners without disclosing the material or evidence which compelled him to summon the petitioners. Since, petitioners were not sent up to face trial, learned Magistrate could not have summoned them at this stage. He could have summoned the petitioners only under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if any evidence had come against them. At the initial stage Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the course of any inquiry or trial. He has placed reliance on Anand Sharma vs. State 2003 I AD (Delhi) 38, Raj Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 495 and Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 149 . 5. Relevant it would be refer to Section 190 Cr.P.C. at this stage, which reads as under:- 1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, specially empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) Upon a police report of such facts; (c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. 6. A perusal of above provision makes it clear that Magistrate takes cognizance of offence and not the offender. After taking cognizance of the offence Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is empowered to issue process to the accused. At the stage of issuing process it is for the Magistrate to decide whether the process should be issued to a particular person named in the charge-sheet and also person not named therein and for this purpose he is required to consider the FIR and the statements recorded by the police officials and other documents filed along with the charge-sheet. The Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused by ignoring the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently applying his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation by taking into account the statement of the witnesses examined by the police. At the stage of taking cognizance Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not attracted. 7. In Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar AIR 1967 (2) SCR 423 , Supreme Court has held that “In our opinion, once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence”. 8. In M/s SWILL Ltd. vs. State of Delhi & Anr. 2001 2747, Supreme Court has held as under:- In our view, from the facts stated above it is clear that at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence, provisions of S.190 Cr.P.C. would be applicable. Section 190 inter alia provides that the the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon a Police report of such facts which constitute an offence. Section 190 inter alia provides that the the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon a Police report of such facts which constitute an offence. As per this provision, Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and not the offender. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate under S. 204 Cr.P.C. is empowered to issue process to the accused. At the stage of issuing process, it is for the Magistrate to decide whether process should be issued against particular person/persons named in the charge-sheet and also not named therein. For that purpose, he is required to consider the FIR and the statements recorded by the Police Officer and other documents tendered along with charge-sheet. Further, upon receipt of Police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused by ignoring the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently applying his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation by taking into account the statement of the witnesses examined by the Police. At this stage, there is no question of application of S. 319 Cr.P.C. 9. In Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 3524 , Supreme Court held that a Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence against such persons also who have not been arrested by Police as accused persons if it appears from the evidence collected by the police that they were prima facie guilty of offence alleged to have been committed. 10. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are in the context of different facts and are of no help to the petitioners. In Anand Sharma (supra), cognizance of offence was taken by the Magistrate on 6th April, 1996 and process was issued to the accused persons, who were placed in column no. 4 of the charge-sheet. By a subsequent order dated 30th November, 1998, accused persons who were arrayed in column no. 2 were also summoned. In this context, it was held that such a step would have been taken by resorting to Section 319 Cr.P.C. Raj Kishore Prasad (supra) and Ranjit Singh (supra) are also in the context of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 11. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Crl. M.A. 7298/2012 (Stay) Disposed of as infructuous. _____________