JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the original record and after perusing the same this revision petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and the impugned order 8.12.2015 (Annex-1) passed by the Additional Sessions No.2 Sikar in Sessions Case No. (41/2015) 30/2015 CIS No. 110/2015 (titled as State v. Abhimanyu Singh) allowing the application dated 24.03.2015 (Annex-8) filed by the complainant non-petitioner No.2 u/S. 193 Cr.RC. and taking cognizance for the offence u/S. 498A, 304B IPC and in the alternative section 306 IPC, may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. 2. Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 3. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Abhimanu Singh (co-accused) was married with Renu (since deceased) daughter of non-petitioner No.2-complainant. Both loved each other and were living happily. Abhimanyu Singh had got some information regarding some illicit relations of his wife Renu with some persons, namely; Shrawan Nayak, Tara Nayak, Imran, prior to the marriage. When this fact came to the knowledge of Abhimanyu Singh, he enquired about truthfulness of the information. Renu, his wife admitted each and every thing. Since, such activities of illicit relations of Renu with other persons related prior to her marriage, therefore, her husband Abhimanyu Singh did not take the matter seriously and also advised his wife Renu to forget all these facts and for future to lead her married life peacefully and sincerely. However, Smt. Renu, daughter of complainant, was under deep depression and threats especially from one Imran. Renu used to remain perturbed. On account of such disturbances of peace of Renu due to her premarital relations, on 27.11.2014, in the morning, Renu committed suicide by hanging. The family members of Renu were informed about the incident and the police were also informed about the incident. The postmortem of the dead body was also conducted. 4. Renu used to remain perturbed. On account of such disturbances of peace of Renu due to her premarital relations, on 27.11.2014, in the morning, Renu committed suicide by hanging. The family members of Renu were informed about the incident and the police were also informed about the incident. The postmortem of the dead body was also conducted. 4. On 27.11.2014, at 1:25 p.m., non-petitioner No.2 Laxman Singh, father of deceased, submitted a written report at Police Station Udyog Nagar, Sikar, in which allegations of dowry demand were made and it was further alleged that for fulfilling the illegal demand of dowry Abhimanyu Singh (husband of Renu), younger brother of Abhimanyu Singh and the present petitioners murdered his daughter Renu and thereafter made her to hang so as to give it shape of suicide. On the basis of this report the police registered an FIR No. 334/2014 for the offences under sections 498A, 304B IPC and started investigation. 5. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against co-accused Abhimanyu Singh for offence u/S. 306 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Sikar. However, against the petitioners final report was submitted. 6. After investigation, police came to a definite conclusion that present petitioners were not at all involved in the alleged incident and not committed any offence. No challan has been filed against the present petitioners. The police submitted challan only against the son of the petitioners u/S. 306 IPC. After filing charge sheet by the police against Abhimanyu Singh on 24.02.2015 the complainant filed an application (Annex. 6) before the learned judicial Magistrate No. 1 for taking cognizance against the present petitioners as well as Abhimanyu Singh u/Ss. 498A, 406 and 304B IPC. Reply to the application was filed by the accused Abhimanyu Singh inter-alia stating that from the evidence available on record and the post mortem report, no offence under sections 498A, 406 and 304B IPC is made out, rather there is ample evidence available on record to take cognizance for offence under section 306 IPC against Imran Khan, Laxman Singh and Smt. Suman Devi. 7. After hearing arguments, learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.03.2015 (Annex.2) dismissed the application and refused to take cognizance u/Ss. 498A & 304B IPC against the present petitioners as well as Abhimanyu Singh. Thus the order dated 11.03.2015 attained the finality as no revision petition/appeal/criminal misc. 7. After hearing arguments, learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.03.2015 (Annex.2) dismissed the application and refused to take cognizance u/Ss. 498A & 304B IPC against the present petitioners as well as Abhimanyu Singh. Thus the order dated 11.03.2015 attained the finality as no revision petition/appeal/criminal misc. petition was preferred either by the complainant or by the learned Public Prosecutor there-against. 8. When the learned Magistrate No. 1 Sikar committed the accused Abhimanyu Singh, complainant submitted an application u/S. 193 Cr.P.C. on the same facts before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar to take cognizance for offences u/Ss. 498-A, 304-B and 315 IPC against accused petitioners as well as Abhimanyu Singh. In this application, complainant had concealed the fact that he filed a similar application (Annex.6) u/S. 190 Cr.RC. for taking cognizance u/Ss. 498-A and 304-B, IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sikar against the same accused which was dismissed on i 11.3.2015. 9. On 8.5.2015 detailed reply was filed by Abhimanyu Singh praying therein that complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. 10. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar, allowed the 5 application vide order dated 8.10.2015 filed u/S. 193 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance for offences punishable u/Ss. 304-B and 498-A IPC and in the alternative 306 IPC against accused petitioners and co-accused Abhimanyu Singh (husband) and directed to issue bailable warrants of Rs. 1000/- for securing their attendance. 11. Aggrieved with the order dated 8.10.2015 (Annex. 10) passed by the learned court below by which it took cognizance and initiated criminal proceedings against the accused petitioners to face sessions trial for offences u/S. 498-A and 304-B IPC and in the alternative 306 IPC, petitioners invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this court for quashing the order dated 8.10.2015 in which the court was of the view that the accused petitioners should file revision petition and an application was moved to treat the said criminal miscellaneous petition and thereafter it was registered as S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 1425/2015 which was disposed of on 4.11.2015 (Annex. 11), by which the order dated 8.10.2015 was quashed and set aside and the matter 2 was remanded to the Addl. Revision Petition No. 1425/2015 which was disposed of on 4.11.2015 (Annex. 11), by which the order dated 8.10.2015 was quashed and set aside and the matter 2 was remanded to the Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar with a direction to hear the parties and pass fresh order in accordance with law in the light of the judgment passed in the case Dharampal & Ors v. State of Haryana, 2014 (3) SCC 306 and the parties were directed to remain present on 2.12.2015. 12. On 2.12.2015. arguments were heard and the matter was kept for 2 pronouncement of order on 8.12.2015, whereby the application dated 24.3.2015 filed by complainant non-petitioner No. 2 u/S. 193 has been partly allowed and cognizance for offence punishable u/Ss. 304-B and 498-A IPC and in the alternative 306 IPC has been taken and an order was passed for issuing bailable warrants of Rs. 1000/- against the petitioners for securing their presence.Mr. Ashvin Garg, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners has contended that the trial court while passing the impugned order has not considered the basic principle that order initiating criminal proceedings by taking cognizance is illegal as specially when the Magistrate dismissed the : application of complainant u/S. 190 Cr.P.C. and refused to take cognizance of offence u/Ss. 498-A, 304-B IPC. Counsel submitted that no revision petition was filed by the non-petitioner No.2-complainant against the order dated 11.3.2015 (Annex. 2) and the order dated 11.3.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sikar has become final. Counsel has further submitted that ignoring this legal aspect of the matter, the exercise of powers under section 193 Cr.PC. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar is illegal. Thus the impugned order dated 8.10.2015 taking cognizance for offence under sections 498A, 304B IPC against petitioners and co-accused Abhimanyu Singh (husband) is wholly illegal and erroneous and it suffers from basic infirmity, illegality and perversity. Counsel further submitted that the complainant despite having remedy to file criminal revision, did not file the same and in-stead of filing criminal revision petition, filed an application on the same facts under section 193 Cr.P.C. before the Addl. Sessions Judge and that too by concealing the material fact that his earlier application under section 190 Cr.PC. was rejected by the Magistrate. This course of action taken by the complainant non-petitioner No.2 amounts an abuse of the process of the Court. Sessions Judge and that too by concealing the material fact that his earlier application under section 190 Cr.PC. was rejected by the Magistrate. This course of action taken by the complainant non-petitioner No.2 amounts an abuse of the process of the Court. Counsel further submitted that the jurisdiction invoked by the learned court below under section 193 Cr.PC. was manifestly absurd and unjust and no pre-charge evidence is available on record to take a view different to the learned Magistrate. Counsel further submitted that the satisfaction drawn by the learned Magistrate was objective and after considering all the evidence available on record. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has failed to consider the entire prosecution evidence available on record and only considered the statements of highly interested witnesses who are close relatives of the complainant. However, from the statements of other witnesses it is clear that prima facie no offence under sections 498A and 304B IPC is made out against the accused petitioners. Counsel has further submitted that on 6.11.2015, the accused petitioners moved an application along-with certified copy of the order dated 4.11.2015 passed by this Court, was submitted before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar. Earlier, the learned trial court ordered to again issue bailable warrants against the petitioners and to put up the case on 2.12.2015 but subsequently drawn order-sheet to fix the case for arguments. However, instead of the fact that earlier order dated 8.10.2015 had been quashed by this Court, yet the bailable warrants were issued against petitioners on 18.11.2015. This shows the prejudice of the learned court below against the accused petitioners. On coming to know that bailable warrants have been issued against the accused petitioners, the accused petitioners, through their counsel submitted an application to recall the bailable warrants unserved. Only thereafter, on 27.11.2015, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, ordered to recall the bailable warrants unserved, the order-sheets dated 6.11.2015 and 27.11.2015 are enclosed as Annex. 12 (colly) to the criminal revision petition. 13. In support of his case counsel for the accused petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Dharmpal and others v. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306 , the relevant para of which is 39, which is reproduced as under: "It is well settled that cognizance of an offence can only be taken once. 13. In support of his case counsel for the accused petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Dharmpal and others v. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306 , the relevant para of which is 39, which is reproduced as under: "It is well settled that cognizance of an offence can only be taken once. In the event, a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and then commits the case to the court of Session, the question of taking fresh cognizance of the offence and, thereafter, proceed to issue summons, is not in accordance with law. If cognizance is to be taken of the offence, it could be taken either by the Magistrate or by the Court of Session. The language of Section 193 of the Code very clearly indicates that once the case is committed to the Court of Session by the learned Magistrate, the Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction and all that goes with the assumption of such jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 209 will, therefore, have to be understood as the learned Magistrate playing a passive role in committing the case to the Court of Session on finding from the police report that the case was triable by the Court of Session. Nor can there by any question of part cognizance being taken by the Magistrate and part cognizance being taken by the learned Session Judge." 14. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below be quashed and set aside. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor Ms. Sonia Shandilya assisted by Shri R.P Kuleep learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners. Counsel further contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar has passed the aforesaid order after taking into consideration the facts of the case and the material made available to him. Thus no interference is required to be made by this court. 16. I have considered the rival submissions made at Bar by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me during the course of hearing. 17. From a bare perusal of the order dated 8.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Thus no interference is required to be made by this court. 16. I have considered the rival submissions made at Bar by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me during the course of hearing. 17. From a bare perusal of the order dated 8.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar, it is clear that it has elaborately dealt with each and every point while deciding the application filed by the complainant under section 193 Cr.P.C. and has not committed any material irregularity and illegality in deciding the same. 17. From a bare perusal of the order dated 8.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar, it is clear that it has elaborately dealt with each and every point while deciding the application filed by the complainant under section 193 Cr.P.C. and has not committed any material irregularity and illegality in deciding the same. However, the relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under: " bl izdkj mDr lHkh xokgku us vius /kkjk 161 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds c;kuksa esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dk leFkZu djrs gq, eq[; :i ls e`rdk js.kq dh 'kknh vfHkeU;q flag] lkl lq[koar mQZ lq[knsoh] llqj cychjflag }kjk ngst ds fy;s rax isj'kku djuk] chl yk[k :i;s udn o IykV dh ekax djuk vkSj ngst ds fy;s js.kq dks ekj nsuk eq[; :i ls c;ku fd;k gSA mijksDr foospukuqlkj i=koyh ij izFke n`"V;k ;g izdV gS fd js.kq dks ngst dh ekax ds fy;s mlds ifr] lkl o llqj }kjk dzwjrk dk O;ogkj dj izrkfM+r fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk mldh e`R;q 'kknh ds 7 o"kZ ds Hkhrj lkekU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gqbZ gSA pwafd bl Lrj ij U;k;ky; dks ek= ;g ns[kuk gksrk gS fd eqyfteku ds fo:) izlaKku ysrs gsrq izFke n`"V;k i;kZIr vk/kkj ekStwn gS vFkok ugha uk fd ;g ns[kuk fd eqyfteku ds fo:) nks"kflf) gks ldrh gS vFkok ughaA fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kUr gS fd ;fn i=koyh ij izlKkau ysus gsrq FkksM+h lh lk{; gS rks izlaKku fy;k tk ldrk gSA izdj.k esa ngst izrkM+uk dh ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa tks Hkh egRoiw.kZ xokg gks ldrs gSa os e`rdk ds ifjokj okys gh gks ldrs gSa vkSj e`rdk ds ifjokjokyksa }kjk mijksDr foospukuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa vafdr rF;ksa dk leFkZu fd;k x;k gS] tgkWa rd U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2014@3 ,l lh lh 306 /keZiky o vU; cuke gfj;k.kk jkT; o vU; dk iz'u gS rks ;g vfHk;qDr i{k dks dksbZ lgk;rk iznku ugha djrk gS D;ksafd mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa ,slk dgha Hkh vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 193 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkosnu ij bl U;k;ky; dks i=koyh ij ekStwn lk{; ds vk/kkj ij izlaKku ysus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksA bl izdkj mijksDr lEiw.kZ foospukuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k vfHkeU;wflag] cychj flag] lq[koar mQZ lq[knsoh ds fo:) /kkjk 304ch] 498, fodYi esa 306 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k esa vkxs dk;Zokgh gsrq izFke n`"V;k i;kZIr vk/kkj i=koyh ij ekStwn gSA tgkWa rd nsoj ijhf{kr dk iz'u gS rks bl lEcU/k esa mDr xokgku us vius /kkjk 161 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds dFkuksa esa dqN ugha dgk gS ftlls ijhf{kr ds fo:) izlaKku ysus gsrq izFke n`"V;k i;kZIr vk/kkj i=koyh ij ekStwn ugha gSA tgkWa rd /kkjk 315 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk iz'u gS rks bl lEcU/k esa Hkh i=koyh ij izlaKku gsrq i;kZIr vk/kkj ekStwn ugha gSA vr% ifjoknh y{e.k flag dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 193 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk fnukafdr 24-03-2015 vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vfHk;qDrx.k vfHkeU;wflag] cychj flag rFkk lq[koar mQZ lq[knsoh ds fo:) /kkjk 304ch] 498, Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk fodYi esa /kkjk 306 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k esa izlaKku fy;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k cychjflag ,oa lq[koar mQZ lq[knsoh dks tfj;s okjaV tekurh ,d gtkj :i, ryc fd;k tkosA " 18. I find no irregularity and illegality in the order dated 8.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar. 19. The criminal revision petition filed by the accused petitioners is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed after confirming the order dated 8.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar. *******