ORDER : 1. Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 07.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui Camp Mahwa. District Dausa whereby, Revision Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and order dated 23.05.2016 whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioners was upheld. 2. In brief the factual matrix of the case are that FIR No. 534/2014 was registered on 02.10.2014 under Sections 143, 323, 341, 307 and 302 of IPC in relation to an incident which took place on 30.09.2014. Police after due investigation submitted challan against Chhotelal and Kailash. An application was filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 18.12.2014 and simultaneously the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. A Revision Petition was preferred by the complainant. The Revisional Court vide order dated 06.04.2016 quashed the order dated 18.12.2014. The committal order was also quashed and the matter was remanded back for rehearing on cognizance. Learned Magistrate took cognizance against Chhotelal and Kailsah as well as the present petitioners vide order dated 23.05.2016. A Revision Petition was preferred by the petitioners which was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2017. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that there is no provision under the Code by which cognizance order be set aside by the Magistrate and by which a case can be remanded back for rehearing on the question of cognizance. It is also contended that once an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. is dismissed by the Magistrate and the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, Court of Sessions is not empowered to set aside the committal order and remand the case for rehearing on the question of cognizance as cognizance is taken of the offence and not of offender. 4. It is contended that Police submitted negative final report qua the present petitioners and application filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. was also dismissed as there was no material available against the present petitioners. 5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on “Balveer Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 680 ”, “Hira Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1999) 2 RLW (Raj) 806” and Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. AIR 2013 SC 3018 ”. 6. Reliance has also been placed on “Raj Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 680 ”, “Hira Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1999) 2 RLW (Raj) 806” and Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. AIR 2013 SC 3018 ”. 6. Reliance has also been placed on “Raj Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 495 ,” wherein Apex Court held that the power under Section 209 Cr.P.C. to summon a new offender is not vested with the Magistrate on the plain reading of its text as well as proceedings before him not being an inquiry or material before him not being evidence. Apex Court further held that the order of the Court of Session requiring the Magistrate to arrest and logically commit the appellant along with the accused proposed to be committed to stand trial before it, is patently illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Since the Magistrate has no such power to add a person as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. when handling a matter under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., the Court of Session, in purported exercise of revisional powers cannot obligate it to do so. 7. Reliance has also been placed on “Ibrahim Khan vs. State of Raj. (1999) 3 WLC 406 ” wherein it was held by the Rajasthan High Court that the moment the Magistrate commits a case to the Court of Session under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., he became the functous officio so far as his powers under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. in respect of offence for which he had taken cognizance is concerned. Similar view was taken by the Rajasthan High Court in “Hira Lal vs. State of Raj. (1999) 2 RLW (Raj) 806.” 8. It is also contended that the order of Sessions Judge is grossly illegal as he has set aside the entire cognizance order. Cognizance order of co-accused Chhote Lal & Kailash was not under challenge before the Sessions Court. Sessions Court set aside the cognizance order and remanded the case to the Magistrate for taking fresh cognizance. 9. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that the Magistrate Court has erred in not taking cognizance against the present petitioners and therefore, the Sessions Judge was empowered to direct the Court below to re-hear the parties and pass afresh orders. 10. I have considered the contentions. 11. 9. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that the Magistrate Court has erred in not taking cognizance against the present petitioners and therefore, the Sessions Judge was empowered to direct the Court below to re-hear the parties and pass afresh orders. 10. I have considered the contentions. 11. It is not in dispute that police initially submitted chargesheet only against Chhote Lal & Kailash. At the time of taking cognizance, an objection was raised by the complainant before the Magistrate that the present petitioner’s involvement is also made out. Learned Magistrate passed a reasoned order considering the evidence recorded before the police from which it was made out that the petitioners were not involved in the commission of crime though their name was appearing in the FIR. Learned Magistrate therefore, took cognizance only against Chhote Lal & Kailash. Revision petition preferred by the complainant was allowed. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge set aside the entire committal order and remanded the case with a direction to the Learned Magistrate to re-hear the parties and pass order afresh. The order passed by the Learned Magistrate is grossly illegal as the order of taking of cognizance against Chhote Lal & Kailash was also set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 12. Apex Court in “Balveer Singh & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 680 ” classified the order of taking cognizance into two categories. Situation A : When Magistrate has played an active role in taking/refusing cognizance before committing case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and Situation B: When Magistrate has played a passive role in committing case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. Apex Court held that in Situation A i.e. of active committal, when Magistrate has already exercised cognizance power, Sessions Court cannot take cognizance for the second time “as a court of original jurisdiction” under Section 193 of Cr.P.C., as cognizance of an offence can only be taken once. In Situation B i.e. of passive committal, since Magistrate has not exercised cognizance power, Sessions Court is free to exercise the same for the first time “as a court of original jurisdiction” under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. 13. This Court in “Jagdish vs. State of Raj. S.B. Criminal Misc. In Situation B i.e. of passive committal, since Magistrate has not exercised cognizance power, Sessions Court is free to exercise the same for the first time “as a court of original jurisdiction” under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. 13. This Court in “Jagdish vs. State of Raj. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.730/2018” decided on 16.05.2019 held that once the Court has taken cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate Court becomes functus officio and the only work which is left, is of an administrative nature that is to commit to the Court of Sessions. Similar is the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in “Hira Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1999) 2 RLW (Raj) 806” and “Ibrahim Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (1999) 3 WLC 406 ”. 14. After the case was remanded by the Sessions Court, Magistrate passed orders taking cognizance against Chhote Lal, Kailash and present petitioners. Present petitioners challenged the order before the revisional Court and the revision petition was dismissed. It is true that the Sessions Court after committal of a case can exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and add a new accused on the basis of evidence recorded by it, but as held by the Apex Court in Raj Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Supra), quashing of cognizance order and directing the Magistrate to pass order afresh is not provided under the Code. The Sessions Court further has power to summon and array any person in trial even without aid of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. at the stage of committal as held by the Constitutional Bench in “Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 .” 15. Apex Court in Raj Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar (Supra) held that while committing a case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. to associate another person as accused in exercise of power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. or under any other provision and Court of Session in purported exercise of revisional power cannot obligate the Magistrate to do so, as proceeding under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate is not an inquiry and material placed before him is not evidence. 16. In the present case in hand, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while exercising powers under revision has committed gross error in setting aside the committal order and remanding the case. 16. In the present case in hand, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while exercising powers under revision has committed gross error in setting aside the committal order and remanding the case. He has exercised the powers which are not vested under the Code. Thereafter the Magistrate has also erred in taking cognizance against the present petitioners as well as Chhote Lal & Kailash as Magistrate after passing the cognizance order and after committing the case had become functus officio. However, since there was a direction of the revisional Court, he was bound to comply but after taking cognizance and after committing the case, Magistrate had become functus officio, hence, his order of taking cognizance cannot be sustained. It is true that second revision is barred under the Code but in exceptional cases, High Court can exercise the inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of Court and secure the ends of justice. Hence, this Court deems it proper to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 17. Misc. petition is accordingly allowed. Orders dated 07.07.2017, 23.05.2016 and 06.04.2016 passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside. Committal order passed by the Magistrate dated 18.12.2014 is restored. 18. However, it is made clear that this order would not bar the Sessions Court from summoning persons shown in Column-2 of the police report to stand trial alongwith those already named therein as held by the Apex Court in “Kishun Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16 ” and Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Supra).