JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order of cognizance dated 21st July, 2003 so as order passed on the revision petition against the aforesaid order. 2. Learned counsel submits that cognizance for offence under Section 306 IPC has been taken though no material exist to show abetment of suicide by the present petitioner. The Police had given adverse final report but without giving any reason to take cognizance, the impugned order has been passed. The revisional court also failed to consider that once the adverse final report is given by the Police, cognizance should not have been taken casually rather it could have been after recording reason to deny acceptance of adverse final report. Learned counsel has made reference of judgment of this court in the case of Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1995 CRI.L.J. 3066 , Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ajay Patodia v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2004 CRI.L.J. 197 as well as of Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in (2010) 10 SCR 351 . In the similar circumstances, proceedings for offence under Section 306 IPC were dropped as nothing was found against the petitioner. In view of above, prayer is made to set aside the order taking cognizance so as the order of the revisional court. 3. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 4. It is no doubt that after registration of FIR at the instance of the Police, investigation was made followed by adverse final report. The court below took cognizance vide impugned order dated 21.07.2003. The cognizance order was passed based on "Parcha Bayan" where the petitioner has been named. I am not going into the facts at this stage but find that the court below has given reasons while passing the order dated 21.07.2003 for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC. The revisional court refused to interfere in the said order. At the stage of cognizance, the court below is required to see as to whether prima facie case is made out for taking cognizance against the accused. The court is not required to draw its conclusion as to whether charges for the offence have been made out or not. The revisional court refused to interfere in the said order. At the stage of cognizance, the court below is required to see as to whether prima facie case is made out for taking cognizance against the accused. The court is not required to draw its conclusion as to whether charges for the offence have been made out or not. It is well settled law that for quashing of FIR, the court should see as to whether bare perusal of FIR, no offence is made etc. and if challenge is to the order of cognizance then to see that no material exist to take prima facie view to proceed in the matter. With the aforesaid limited jurisdiction, the revisional court had decided the revision petition vide order dated 11th November, 2003. The petition herein under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is against the order of the revisional court. It is literally a second revision petition barred by Criminal Procedure Code. In general, interference in the revisional court's orders is not made while hearing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unless gross abuse of process is shown. Looking to the fact that witnesses have disclosed name of the petitioner, it would not be proper at this stage to see that conclusively the petitioner is involved for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. At this stage, any comment as to whether a case under Section 306 IPC is made out or not would cause prejudice to the petitioner. 5. In view of above, I am not going into the factual aspect but while dismissing the criminal misc. petition, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all the issues at the time of hearing of the case for framing charges. In that case, the court below would hear and decide the issues, if raised by the petitioner. 6. It dismisses the stay application also.Petition disposed of. *******