JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions are filed against a common order whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners, hence are decided by this common order. 2. The present petitioner has assailed the order of cognizance whereas respondent No. 2 has also assailed the same cognizance order whereby cognizance has not been taken against respondents No. 2 to 5 in Revision Petition No. 696/2003 and against present petitioners, cognizance has not been taken under Section 147, 149, 341 and 451 IPC. 3. The facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 2 stating therein that on 15.4.2001 at about 9.30 in the morning both the present petitioners came to their house, they used abusive language and have hit his wife with helmet on her head, scratched her with nails and when his son came there he has also been beaten. After some time, brother of petitioner No. 1 Vikas, his wife Anjali, Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Rekha and Devendra Singh also came there and joined the beating. The complainant and his wife suffered injuries. On this FIR No. 85/2001 has been registered. After investigation, final report has been filed on which cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners by the court below under Section 147, 323/149, 341, 325 and 451 IPC. The order was challenged before the revisional court and the revisional court has confirmed the cognizance taken against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 323, 325 and converted into it read with offence under Section 34 for rest the cognizance order has been quashed. 4. The contention of the present petitioners is that the order of cognizance is bad in law as FIR has been lodged on false allegations just to counter-blast the report lodged by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 has also lodged a complaint against respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 494 and 114 IPC. The petitioner No. 1 has been defrauded by family of respondent No. 2 and she has been harassed and just to keeping pressure, this false FIR has been lodged. Petitioner No. 1 has also lodged a complaint against respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 494 and 114 IPC. The petitioner No. 1 has been defrauded by family of respondent No. 2 and she has been harassed and just to keeping pressure, this false FIR has been lodged. Initially, in X-ray report of respondent No. 2, complainant the doctor has opined that no bonee injury is seen thereafter fracture has been shown there is no iota of evidence against the present petitioners, hence cognizance be quashed.Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant is that there is no infirmity in the order of cognizance. The learned court below took cognizance against the present petitioners which was further scanned by the revisional court and looking to the evidence of respondent No. 2, complainant his wife and other eye-witnesses along with medical opinion, cognizance has rightly been taken against the present petitioners. Their further contention is that other respondents No. 2 to 5 were also present on the spot, they also participated as the member of unlawful assembly and the incident has taken place inside the house of complainant, hence the cognizance under Section 147 and 451 IPC should have also been taken and respondents No. 2 to 5 have been wrongly discharged for the said offence. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned order as well as the original record of the case. 6. On the written report of respondent No. 2, complainant FIR has been lodged which has been supported by the evidence of complainant himself. Witness Janki Singh has also testified the fact about the incident, she has also suffered injuries and incident has taken place outside the house of Janki Devi, hence her presence is also natural. Independent witness is Deshraj who also lives in the vicinity of the place of incident has stated that on the day of incident, he saw both the present petitioners at the house of complainant and also saw that Janki Devi has suffered injuries. Independent witness is Deshraj who also lives in the vicinity of the place of incident has stated that on the day of incident, he saw both the present petitioners at the house of complainant and also saw that Janki Devi has suffered injuries. Other witness Narendra Kumar Mathur has also corroborated the story of the complainant and the first Investigation Officer was also of the opinion that prima facie there is evidence that incident has taken place, and thereafter after recording statement of petitioners and their witnesses negative final report has been filed only on the ground that cross-FIR has been lodged. 7. In cross-FIR, petitioner No. 1 herself has admitted the fact that she went to the house of complainant Satyabhan Singh on 15.4.2001 at about 9.00 AM and she also called petitioner No. 2 there hence the presence of petitioners has been admitted by the petitioners themselves. 8. The other contention of the petitioners is that earlier Doctor has opined that Satyabhan has not received any bone injury thereafter this opinion has been cut down and opinion about fracture has been given. For this, during investigation Doctor Lalilt Krishna has stated after looking at the X-ray plate No. 4070 and 4071 that Satyabhan has suffered fracture of fourth limber vertebra on left side and the Public Prosecutor has submitted that as Janki Devi has not suffered any bone injury by mistake this has been entered in the X-ray report of complainant but X-ray plates clearly suggest that Satyabhan has suffered grievous injuries and the court below has also considered the contention of the petitioner. 9. At the time of taking cognizance, the only test is that whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and both the courts below have came to the same conclusion that on 15.4.2001 at about 9.00 AM, present petitioners went to the place of Satyabhan and inflicted injuries to Satyabhan and Janki and Satyabhan has also suffered grievous injury, hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order of taking cognizance against the present petitioners. 10. The contention of the complainant is that respondent No. 2 to 5 has also participated in the incident but in First Information Report, it has been stated that initially Rakhi and Rakesh came there and after some time, Vikas and other persons came there. Deshraj has not supported the fact that other persons were also there. 10. The contention of the complainant is that respondent No. 2 to 5 has also participated in the incident but in First Information Report, it has been stated that initially Rakhi and Rakesh came there and after some time, Vikas and other persons came there. Deshraj has not supported the fact that other persons were also there. Narendra Kumar, Mahendra Singh has also stated about the presence of only petitioners, hence the learned revisional court was conscious of the fact that it is a case of over-implication and has rightly ordered not to take cognizance against respondent No. 2 to 5. 11. It has been stated by the complainant that incident has taken place inside his house but site plan which has been prepared at the instance of complainant speaks itself that incident has taken place outside the house of complainant and hence the revisional court was justified in not taking cognizance for the offence under Section 451 IPC. The complainant has also relied upon Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & ors., AIR 1976 SC 1947 where general principles which should be followed while issuing process against the accused have been explained.In view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of revisional court. The revisional court has considered the material on record in right perspective and cognizance has rightly been taken against the present petitioner and rightly have been declined for the other. Both the petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.Record of the lower court be sent back forthwith. *******