ORDER : 1. Petitioners by way of this revision have assailed order dated 18.7.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar in Sessions Case No.(121/2014)(20/2014)95/2015 CIS No.58/2015, whereby on the application of complainant, learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar took cognizance u/s 193 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for offences u/s 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 452 read with section 149 IPC and summoned them. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that complainant i.e. private respondent herein, submitted a report before SHO, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar on 5.7.2014 alleging inter alia that when he came to police station for reporting the incident occurred on 4.6.2014, Radheysham Jat threatened him not to lodge FIR otherwise he would be done away. Whereupon, he went back to his house. On calling by police, he came today at police station and lodged FIR about the incident occurred with him on the day before. When he went back to his village after medical examination at about 3.45 PM, Hari Ram, Rajendra, Vijaypal, Rakesh, Mahipalm, Bajrang Lal, Sunil, Vikas, Lali and Radheyshyam came there armed with lathis and iron rods, riding on two tractors and entered into his house. Immediately, Hari Ram gave a blow of iron rod on his nephew Neeraj who became unconscious. When his mother came there, Vijaypal gave a blow of lathi on her shoulder. On hue and cry, many people rushed to his house. The accused warned them to hand over Jagdish (complainant), failing which, they would kill all his family members. Thereupon, complainant along with his brother - Prema Ram and ladies tried to intervene, they gave beatings to all of them. On this information, FIR No.174/2014 was registered. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet for offences u/s 341, 323, 325, 307 and 452 read with section 34 IPC against Vijaypal, Hari Ram, Rajendra and Rakesh. Complainant moved an application dated 25.8.2014 u/s 190 Cr.P.C. before learned Magistrate with a prayer to take cognizance against all other accused named in the FIR for offences u/s 147, 452, 323, 325, 307 and 120B IPC. After hearing, learned Magistrate vide order dated 16.9.2014 rejected the application observing that sufficient prima facie evidence is not available for taking cognizance as prayed for. This order dated 16.9.2014 was not assailed by any party and attained finality. After hearing, learned Magistrate vide order dated 16.9.2014 rejected the application observing that sufficient prima facie evidence is not available for taking cognizance as prayed for. This order dated 16.9.2014 was not assailed by any party and attained finality. On committal, private respondent again moved an application on 27.9.2014 u/s 193 Cr.P.C. on the basis of same facts and circumstances and made the same prayer for taking cognizance against all the accused named in the FIR. Learned trial court vide order dated 18.7.2016 partly allowed the application and took cognizance against accused Vijaypal, Hari Ram, Rajendra and Rakesh for offence u/s 147 IPC and also took cognizance against accused petitioners Mahipal and Bajrang Lal for offences u/s 147,341, 323, 325, 307 and 452 read with section 149 IPC and summoned them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, contrary to the material available on record and against law. When earlier application u/s 190 Cr.P.C. containing the same prayer was rejected and the Magistrate refused to take cognizance as prayed for, which also attained finality as no revision was preferred by either of the parties, second application with the same relief was not maintainable before the Sessions Court. Learned counsel contended that it amounts to take second time cognizance by the Court of Sessions which is not permissible as per Dharam Pal and Others v/s State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306 . However, when the Magistrate has actively considered the prayer and refused to take cognizance, rejected the prayer and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, the latter has no power to take fresh cognizance of the offence inasmuch as cognizance of offence can be taken only once. In support, he has referred Balveer Singh and Another v/s State of Rajasthan and Another, (2016) 6 SCC 680 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned Public Prosecutor contended that since the case is triable by the Court of Session, it is the Court of Session only which is competent to take cognizance and, therefore, order impugned passed by the Sessions Court on 18.7.2016 should be treated as taking cognizance of the offence for the first time in terms of section 193 Cr.P.C. They also took support of Dharam Pal’s case (supra). 5. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, gone through all the material available on record and the judgments referred. 6. In Dharam Pal’s case (supra), a Constitutional Bench of Apex Court has settled the law that even if the case is triable by the Court of Session, the function of the Magistrate is not to act merely as a post office and commit the case to the Court of Session, but he is also empowered to take cognizance, issue process and summon the accused and thereafter commit the case to the Court of Session. 7. 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, proceeding 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 Magistrate, the Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction and all that goes with the assumption of such jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 209 of the Code will, therefore, have to be understood as the 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 be any question of part cognizance being taken by the Magistrate and part cognizance being taken by the Session Judge. Since the Court of Session is acting as the court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 of the Code, after the committal of proceedings to it by the Magistrate, it is empowered to take cognizance [only if the Magistrate has acted passively under Section 209 CrPC] and issue summons and it cannot be treated as taking second cognizance of the same offence. 8. After examining legal position as postulated by Dharam Pal’s case (supra) as well as other judgments of the Apex Court, it was observed in Balveer Singh’s case (supra) as under :- “24. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we may now discuss the circumstances under which the cognizance was taken by the Session Judge. 8. After examining legal position as postulated by Dharam Pal’s case (supra) as well as other judgments of the Apex Court, it was observed in Balveer Singh’s case (supra) as under :- “24. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we may now discuss the circumstances under which the cognizance was taken by the Session Judge. Here is a case where the police report which was submitted to the Magistrate, the investigating officer had not included the appellants as accused persons. The complainant had filed application before the learned Magistrate with prayer to take cognizance against the appellants as well. This application was duly considered and rejected by the learned Magistrate. The situation in this case is, thus, not where the investigation report/charge-sheet filed under Section 173(8) of the Code implicated the appellants and the appellants contended that they are wrongly implicated. On the contrary, the police itself had mentioned in its final report that case against the appellants had not been made out. This was objected to by the complainant who wanted the Magistrate to summon these appellants as well and for this purpose the application was filed by the complainant under Section 190 of the Code. The appellants had replied to the said application and after hearing the arguments, the application was rejected by the Magistrate. This shows that the order of the Magistrate was passed with due application of mind whereby he refused to take cognizance of the alleged offence against the appellants and confined it only to the son of the appellants. This order was not challenged. Normally, in such a case, it cannot be said that the Magistrate had played “passive role” while committing the case to the Court of Session. He had, thus, taken cognizance after due application of mind and played an “active role” in the process. The position would have been different if the Magistrate had simply forwarded the application of the complainant to the Court of Session while committing the case. In this scenario, we are of the opinion that it would be a case where the Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offence. Notwithstanding the same, the Session Court on the similar application made by the complainant before it, took cognizance thereupon. Normally, such a course of action would not be permissible.” 9. In this scenario, we are of the opinion that it would be a case where the Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offence. Notwithstanding the same, the Session Court on the similar application made by the complainant before it, took cognizance thereupon. Normally, such a course of action would not be permissible.” 9. In the instant matter, both Magistrate and Sessions Judge have taken cognizance in exercise of their powers u/s 190 and 193 Cr.P.C., respectively. As per law laid down by Apex Court, learned Sessions Judge was not ought to take cognizance again in exercise of his powers u/s 193 Cr.P.C., as the Magistrate had already taken cognizance in exercise of his powers u/s 190 Cr.P.C. 10. However, in Balveer Singh’s case (supra), it has also been observed : “25. The next question is as to whether this Court should exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution to interdict such an order. We find that the order of the Magistrate refusing to take cognizance against the appellants is revisable. This power of revision can be exercised by the superior court, which in this case, will be the Court of Session itself, either on the revision petition that can be filed by the aggrieved party or even suo motu by the Revisional Court itself. The Court of Session was, thus, not powerless to pass an order in his revisionary jurisdiction. Things would have been different had he passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence against the appellants, without affording any opportunity to them, since with the order that was passed by the learned Magistrate a valuable right had accrued in favour of these appellants. However, in the instant case, we find that a proper opportunity was given to the appellants herein who had filed reply to the application of the complainant and the Session Court had also heard their arguments. For this reason, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.” 11. However, in the instant case, we find that a proper opportunity was given to the appellants herein who had filed reply to the application of the complainant and the Session Court had also heard their arguments. For this reason, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.” 11. In the instant case, prior to pass the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge had not heard the petitioners which is certainly prejudicial to the petitioners and they have been deprived of the valuable right accrued in their favour as contemplated in section 401 Cr.P.C. Therefore, here in this case, it cannot be assumed that the impugned order is in consonance with the revisional powers of Sessions Court and interference by this court, is not called for. 12. In the result, the impugned order dated 18.7.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar is found to be incorrect, improper and against the established principles of law and is hereby quashed and set aside. The criminal revision stands disposed of.