JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 13-10-2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, whereby he has allowed the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C by the respondent No.2 and took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 304B & 498A IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court relied upon only omnibus type of statements given by the complainant and other relatives, but without assigning cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners. After due investigation, the police has filed challan only against husband Mohammad Jakir and has not filed any challan against the other accused persons. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 support the impugned order dated 13-10-2011 passed by the learned trial Court. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 13-10-2011 passed by the learned trial Court as also material available on record. 5. While deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court has considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses but the FSL report, Post-Mortem report as well as statement of the Doctor have not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors reported in 2014 3 SCC 92 has summarised the legal position in the following words: "Power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure ...." 6. In view of above, the impugned order dated 13-10-2011 is hereby set-aside and the learned trial Court is directed to pass the order afresh on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) as also considering the entire material available on record. 7. Hence, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Record be sent back to the learned trial Court.