JUDGMENT : PRATAP KRISHNA LOHRA, J. 1. By the instant revision petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., accused-petitioners have assailed order dated 7th of October, 2017, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court'), taking cognizance against them for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act of 1989'). 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent-complainant submitted a criminal complaint against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 504 IPC as well as Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Police after investigation submitted negative Final Report in the matter. Learned trial Court, upon considering the negative Final Report and the materials collected during investigation, while resorting to clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 190 Cr.P.C., took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record. 4. The word 'cognizance' is having no esoteric and mystic significance, and, while exercising powers to take cognizance, Court is required to take judicial notice of an act. 5. True it is that in the instant case, upon the complaint submitted by respondent-complainant, police submitted a negative Final Report but then simply because a negative Final Report is submitted in the matter, cannot divest the Court to exercise its power under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 Cr.P.C. In appropriate cases, Court may examine the report and other material available on record submitted by police for taking cognizance. 6. In the instant case, besides the complaint, statements of the complainants recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also available, and therefore, while taking note of those statements, coupled with other statements, learned trial Court has exercised its discretion for taking cognizance against the petitioners. 7. Judgment of Delhi High Court in Kusum Lata v. State & Ors. (Crl. Appeal No. 686/2012, decided on 3rd of March, 2016), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, was rendered in the appeal by complainant, and therefore, it cannot render any assistance to the cause of petitioners at this stage. 7. Judgment of Delhi High Court in Kusum Lata v. State & Ors. (Crl. Appeal No. 686/2012, decided on 3rd of March, 2016), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, was rendered in the appeal by complainant, and therefore, it cannot render any assistance to the cause of petitioners at this stage. Whether abuses were hurled by the petitioners to demean complainant-respondent by her caste in public view, is subject matter of evidence, which cannot be looked at the stage of taking cognizance. 8. Consequently, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, the revision petition fails and same is, hereby rejected summarily.