JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No. 12/2010 preferred on behalf of the petitioners and one Aslam has been dismissed. 2. The aforesaid criminal revision petition was preferred on behalf of the petitioners and one Aslam against the order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Criminal Case No. 36/2010, whereby the trial court took cognizance against the petitioners and one Aslam for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 has filed a complaint before the concerned Magistrate alleging that her husband and his other family members are torturing her for dowry. The details regarding the incidents of torture and demand of dowry have been given in the said complaint. The complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 was forwarded to the police for investigation and the Police Station, Ratangarh, District Churu has registered an FIR No. 230/2009 against eight accused persons including the petitioners. The police after investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR has filed charge-sheet against one Roshan, who happened to be the husband of the respondent no. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. 4. Later on, an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. was preferred on behalf of the respondent no. 2 with a prayer for taking cognizance against the remaining seven persons named in the complaint. 5. The trial court after hearing learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor took cognizance against the petitioners and one Aslam for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, however, refused to take cognizance against other co-accused persons namely Ibrahim, Abdul, Rahmani and Bilal. 6. Being aggrieved with the order of taking cognizance, the petitioners along with one Aslam have preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the revisional court has refused to interfere with the order of taking cognizance passed by the trial court and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 22.3.2011. Hence, this criminal misc. petition. 7. Hence, this criminal misc. petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC as there is no iota of evidence available on record to proceed against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. It is contended that the trial court has simply took cognizance against the petitioner no. 1 as he is the real brother of co-accused Roshan, husband of the complainant and the petitioner no. 2, who is the mother of co-accused Roshan. It is contended that omnibus allegations of demand of dowry and harassment have been levelled against the persons named in the FIR, however, the police after thorough investigation has prima facie found only the husband of the respondent no. 2 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. 8. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the evidence against the petitioners and other persons named in the FIR i.e. Ibrahim, Abdul, Rahmani and Bilal is similar in nature and once the court below has found no case for taking cognizance against co-accused Ibrahim, Abdul, Rahmani and Bilal, then the action of the trial court in taking cognizance on the very similar evidence against the present petitioners is not liable to be sustained in the eye of law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the revisional court without considering this aspect of the matter has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel has therefore prayed that this criminal misc. petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the courts below be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and argued that prima facie evidence for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is available on record. It is further argued that the trial court as well as the revisional court have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below as well as the charge-sheet. 12. Initially, in the complaint, the respondent no. 2 has levelled allegations of harassment and demand of dowry against eight persons. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below as well as the charge-sheet. 12. Initially, in the complaint, the respondent no. 2 has levelled allegations of harassment and demand of dowry against eight persons. The police after thorough investigation has filed charge-sheet against husband of the respondent no. 2. During the course of investigation, the police has recorded statements of neighbours and the close relatives of the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 2. It is noticed that witnesses namely Farzana, Nashideen, Razia, Nasir Ali, Liyakat, Bhola Ram, Vidhyadhar and Kumbha Ram have levelled similar allegations against the present petitioners and the other persons namely Ibrahim, Abdul, Rahmani and Bilal. When the trial court has not found any material to proceed against Ibrahim, Abdul, Rahmani and Bilal on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Agency against them, then it cannot be said that there is any case to proceed against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. It is noticed that the trial court has simply took cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences only for the reason that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the real brother and mother of the husband of the complainant respondent no. 2. Otherwise, there is no direct evidence against the petitioners to connect them with the commission of crime for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. 13. The revisional court has not taken into consideration the fact that the evidence available against the persons, against whom cognizance was not taken and the evidence available against the present petitioners is of similar nature. 14. In view of the above discussion, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 36/2010 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC as well as the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 12/2010 affirming the order of the trial court are hereby set aside. 15. However, it is made clear that the trial against the other co-accused persons namely Roshan Jamir and Aslam shall continue.