ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.01.2016, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Revision No. 72 of 2015, whereby and where under, the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Borio (M) P.S. Case No. 169 of 2015 on 24.07.2015, had been affirmed. 2. The allegation made in the FIR instituted by one Pankaj Kumar Yadav is to the effect that accused persons had assaulted Raja Verma, friend of the informant. It has been alleged that when the informant returned from work along with his friends, he went to petitioner no. 1 to enquire about the assault upon Raja Verma and on hearing this, the accused persons assaulted with an intention to kill. The petitioner no. 1 had given 3 to 4 blows with a sword leading to injuries having been suffered by the informant. The other accused persons also assaulted the informant and others with various weapons. 3. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Borio (M) P.S. Case No. 169 of 2015 was instituted. 4. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under sections 323, 341, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code wherein two accused-Kundan Barnwal and Chhotu Barnwal were not sent up for trial. However, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj vide order dated 24.07.2015 had taken cognizance for the offence under sections 323, 341, 504, 506, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved with the order dated 24.07.2015, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahebganj in Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2015, which was dismissed by order dated 12.01.2016. 5. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned APP for the State. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injury report of the informant suggests that simple injury was suffered by him and considering the said circumstance, charge-sheet was not submitted by the police under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that without assigning any reason, the impugned order dated 24.07.2015 had been passed and which had been affirmed by the revisonal Court. It has been submitted that the order dated 24.07.2015 is against the principles of law laid down in the case of Nupur Tallwar v. CBI, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 . 7. Mr. Learned counsel submits that without assigning any reason, the impugned order dated 24.07.2015 had been passed and which had been affirmed by the revisonal Court. It has been submitted that the order dated 24.07.2015 is against the principles of law laid down in the case of Nupur Tallwar v. CBI, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 . 7. Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned APP, on the other hand, has submitted that on perusal of records of the case including the injury report, cognizance had also been taken for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned S.D.J.M, and there being no illegality in such order as sufficient reasons have been assigned, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 8. Order of learned S.D.J.M, Sahibganj dated 24.07.2015 reveals that the case diary and the injury report was perused, pursuant to which, cognizance was taken, which included section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in his order dated 12.01.2016 had affirmed the order of learned S.D.J.M, Sahibganj simply on the ground that perusal of injury report is a reasonable explanation for taking cognizance under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also. The impugned order dated 24.07.2015 does not suggest that the learned Magistrate had assigned any reason while differing with the police report so far as section 307 IPC is concerned. It is trite law that the Magistrate can differ with the report of investigating officer and take cognizance but while doing so, the learned Magistrate had to assign sufficient reason and he cannot take cognizance in a mechanical manner. The impugned order, as has been stated above, does not suggest independent application of judicial mind on the part of the learned Magistrate and the order taking cognizance so far as section 307 of IPC is concerned has been passed in a mechanical manner. The revisional court although has referred to some of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of the present case but has not considered this aspect of the matter of there being no reason in the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Mere noting in the order that perusal of the case diary and injury report reveals an offence under section 307 IPC will not be enough to sustain such order. 9. Mere noting in the order that perusal of the case diary and injury report reveals an offence under section 307 IPC will not be enough to sustain such order. 9. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, reported in 2015 (4) SCC 609 , it was held as follows:- "48. Sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not. 50. Person who has not joined as accused in the charge-sheet can be summoned at the stage of taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code. There is no question of applicability of Section 319 of the Code at this stage (see SWIL Ltd. v. State of Delhi). It is also trite that even if a person is not named as an accused by the police in the final report submitted, the court would be justified in taking cognizance of the offence and to summon the accused if it feels that the evidence and material collected during investigation justifies prosecution of the accused (see Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja). Thus, the Magistrate is empowered to issue process against some other person, who has not been charge-sheeted, but there has to be sufficient material in the police report showing his involvement. In that case, the Magistrate is empowered to ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and apply his mind independently on the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case. At the same time, it is not permissible at this stage to consider any material other than that collected by the investigating officer". 10. Considering what has been stated above, there being merit in this application the same is allowed. At the same time, it is not permissible at this stage to consider any material other than that collected by the investigating officer". 10. Considering what has been stated above, there being merit in this application the same is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.07.2015, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Sahibganj in Borio (M) P.S. Case No. 169 of 2015 as well as the subsequent order passed in Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2015 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj for passing a fresh order so far as Section 307 of IPC is concerned in accordance with law. Application allowed.