JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. Complainant-petitioner by the instant revision petition has given challenge to order dated 31st March 2016, passed on revision petition of the accused-respondent by Addl. Sessions Judge, Balotra (for short, ‘learned Court below’). By the order impugned, learned Court below has set aside order of cognizance against him for offence under Section 147, 447, 341, 323, 354, 435, 427, 312 & 120-B IPC vide order dated 17.04.2013. 2. The facts apposite are that petitioner-complainant feeling dismayed with the reluctance of SHO PS Samdari to register FIR for aforesaid offences, laid a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Siwana (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). The learned trial Court on receipt of complaint passed order for investigation. After completion of investigation, police submitted final report before learned trial Court under Section 173 Cr.P.C. with a conclusion that no case is made out against persons named in the complaint. Upon receipt of negative final report, learned trial Court proceeded to examine complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, on the basis of material available, learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner and others for aforementioned offences. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court, petitioner preferred a revision petition before learned Court below. The learned Court below after hearing rival parties upset the order of cognizance against the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the materials available on record. 5. The word ‘cognizance’ has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. The use of word ‘cognizance’ under Cr.P.C. signifies the point when Magistrate or Judge takes a judicial notice of an offence, therefore, cognizance pre-supposes judicial application of mind for proceeding under various provisions of Chapter XV Cr.P.C. For taking cognizance allegation of facts constituting offence is necessary. 6. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, if the impugned order of the learned Court below is examined then it would ipso facto reveal that the learned Court below has recorded cogent reasons for setting aside the order of cognizance passed by learned trial Court. It is also borne out from the impugned order that complaint is designed by the petitioner against him to avenge his prosecution for offence under Section 353 IPC at the behest of respondent. It is also borne out from the impugned order that complaint is designed by the petitioner against him to avenge his prosecution for offence under Section 353 IPC at the behest of respondent. There cannot be two opinions that setting into motion machinery of law is a vested right of every individual but then no incumbent can be permitted to abuse the process of law at his whims and fancy or wrecking personal vengeance. A significant fact is also discernible that respondent went to the site for taking necessary measurements of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 821, which was a Government land of revenue village Jethantari, and there he was demeaned by naming his caste and also given beatings by the petitioner-complainant, his wife and others. The findings in this behalf by the learned Court below are clear and unequivocal from Para 8 of the impugned order. The learned Court below while upsetting the order passed by learned trial Court has recorded cogent reasons that material available before it had not furnished sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused-respondent. In view of foregoing discussion, I am unable to find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revision petition. 7. Resultantly, revision petition fails and same is hereby rejected.