JUDGMENT : The petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.04.2015 passed in T.R No. 2020 of 2015 arising out of G.R No. 3163 of 2007. 2. By the order dated 07.04.2015, the learned Magistrate has committed the case records pertaining to Chouparan PS Case No. 135 of 2007 in respect of the petitioners to the Court of Sessions. 3. By an order dated 04.11.2015 further proceeding in connection to S.T No. 159 of 2015 (arising out of Chouparan PS Case No. 135 of 2007) was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and this order was continued on the subsequent dates. 4. By the order dated 27.11.2018, O.P No. 2 was issued notice by this Court. 5. O.P No. 2 has appeared through Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, the learned counsel. 6. The order dated 12.02.2021 reveals that this Court was informed by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of this criminal revision petition Bhola Rana @ Bhola Nath Rana who is the petitioner no. 1 has passed away. The death certificate of Bhola Nath Rana has been brought on record and factum of his death is not disputed by the learned counsels for the parties. 7. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition now survives against the petitioners, namely, Mahendra Rana, Sunita Devi, Gudia Devi @ Sarita Devi and Reshmi Devi. 8. Chouparan PS Case No. 135 of 2007 was registered against Bhola Rana, Kishori Rana, Mahendra Rana, Sunita Devi, Gudia Devi and mother-in-law of the victim on the allegation of committing dowry death and the offence under sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against Kishori Rana while the investigation in respect of other accused remained pending. Subsequently, a Final Form was submitted by the police in respect of other five accused indicating that the allegations against Bhola Rana, Mahendra Rana, Sunita Devi, Gudia Devi and Reshmi Devi were false. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observing that there are sufficient materials available in paragraph nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the case diary, which reflected the materials collected during the investigation against the aforesaid five accused, issued summons to the accused by an order dated 31.07.2008 – the cognizance for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was already taken by the learned Magistrate when warrant was issued to Kishori Rana. The order dated 31.07.2008 was challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 171 of 2008 which was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 06.01.2009, observing that the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance and issue process against the accused even though a Final Form was submitted by the police. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in Cr.M.P No. 457 of 2009 which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 15.01.2014 in the following terms: “Here, it would be pertinent to record that if the Magistrate does differ from the finding given in the police report, then he is required to assign reason for differing with the opinion of the police which proposition has been laid down in a case of “Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation” [ (2012) 2 SCC 188 ]. Here in the instant case as has been noted above, the Magistrate by differing with the opinion of the police has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner who had not been sent up for trial and thereby he seems to have committed wrong in view of the decisions referred to above. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance as well as the order framing charge are hereby quashed so far the petitioners are concerned. However, the matter is again remanded back before the Magistrate to proceed in the matter in accordance with law as indicated above.” 9. On remand, the learned Magistrate passed a specific order differing with the Final Form submitted by the police and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate, it appears, has taken note of the statement of Ajay Singh, Pradeep Prasad Mehta and Sona Rana along with other witnesses whose statements were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners again came to this Court aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2014 by filing Cr.M.P No. 1701 of 2014 which was allowed by this Court holding thus: “Having heard the submission, I have gone through the impugned order. The petitioners again came to this Court aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2014 by filing Cr.M.P No. 1701 of 2014 which was allowed by this Court holding thus: “Having heard the submission, I have gone through the impugned order. From perusal of impugned order I find that learned Judicial Magistrate had given reason for differing with the findings of the Investigating Officer as directed by this Court, but the learned Magistrate had not given any finding as to which offence was committed by the petitioners and whether the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, which is necessary required for committing the case to the Court of Sessions. Thus, part of the order of the Magistrate appears to be illegal. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the order dated 02.05.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in G.R Case No. 3163 of 2007 (S.T. No. 207 of 2014) by which the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and remit the case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh and direct him to reconsider the matter and give a definite finding as to which offence committed by the petitioners and whether the said offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions or not, I further direct that if he finds that the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions then he pass order under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C.” 10. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the order taking cognizance was quashed by this Court the case records in relation to the petitioners could not have been committed to the Court of Sessions, without a fresh order taking cognizance. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2015 in a mechanical manner without indicating the reasons for disagreement with Final Form submitted by the police. 11. The word cognizance finds place at different places in the Code of Criminal Procedure but the word cognizance has not been defined anywhere. 12. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2015 in a mechanical manner without indicating the reasons for disagreement with Final Form submitted by the police. 11. The word cognizance finds place at different places in the Code of Criminal Procedure but the word cognizance has not been defined anywhere. 12. Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extracted below: “Section 190 -Cognizance of offences by Magistrates — (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence— (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.” 13. In “R.R. Chari v. State of U.P” AIR 1951 SC 207 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that taking cognizance does not involve any formal action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of offence. In “Gopal Marwari v. Emperor”” AIR 1943 Pat 245 it was observed that the word “cognizance” is used in the Code to indicate the point when the Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice of an offence. It is a different thing from the initiation of proceedings. It is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the word “cognizance” is a word of somewhat indefinite import and it is perhaps not always used in exactly the same sense. 14. It is not in dispute that Kishori Rana faced the trial in S.T No. 75 of 2008 and now stands convicted under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The phraseology of section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure leaves no manners of doubt that cognizance of offence and not against the offender is taken by the Court. 14. It is not in dispute that Kishori Rana faced the trial in S.T No. 75 of 2008 and now stands convicted under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The phraseology of section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure leaves no manners of doubt that cognizance of offence and not against the offender is taken by the Court. The cognizance for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was taken much before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the order dated 31.07.2008. Notwithstanding that, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to have recorded in the order dated 31.07.2008 that cognizance of the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is taken. The true intent and purpose of the said recording was to issue summons for appearance of the accused. No doubt by the order dated 15.01.2014 this Court has held that the order taking cognizance as well as the order framing charge are quashed, any technical plea founded on this phraseology of order dated 15.01.2014 must fail for the simple reason that cognizance of the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was first taken by the Court while considering charge-sheet no. 192 of 2007, which was filed against Kishori Rana. 15. In so far as the contention that the learned Magistrate has not recorded specific reasons for disagreeing with the Final Form submitted by the police, I find that the order dated 07.04.2015 is a well considered order. This order is primarily an interlocutory order, though not barred under sub-section 2 to section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore the learned Magistrate is not required to write a judgment at this stage. 16. In the order dated 07.04.2015, the learned Magistrate has discussed the materials on record in the following terms: “From perusal of F.I.R as well as para 2 of the case diary, I find that informant namely Saryu Rana has fully supported the F.I.R and stated in his restatement that 2-3 years ago, his daughter Meera Devi informed him through telephone that his father in law Bhola Rana, mother in law, husband Kishori Rana, Mahendra Rana, Gotini Sunita Devi, Sister in law Gudia Devi, Rajesh Rana, cousin brother-in-law were torturing her for dowry. On 18.08.2007 at 5 A.M on information, he rushed on spot and found his daughter dead. On 18.08.2007 at 5 A.M on information, he rushed on spot and found his daughter dead. Fifty thousand rupees was demanded by the accused persons and when their demand was not fulfilled, they started torturing her, due to which she committed suicide. Similarly, witness Mahadeo Rana, Virendra Prasad Mehta, Ajay Singh, Pradeep Prasad Mehta and Sona Rana in para 3-7 respectively, have also stated that due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry, her in-laws regularly tortured her, due to which informant's daughter committed suicide and she was found dead. From perusal of the statement of above witnesses, it is clear that Meera Devi was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws including her husband, due to non fulfillment of dowry, due to which she committed suicide. Meaning thereby, her in-laws and other accused persons namely Bhola Rana, Reshmi Devi, Mahendra Rana, Sunita Devi and Gudia Devi always tortured Meera Devi and thereby abetted the commission of suicide, due to which Meera Devi committed suicide which is punishable u/s 306 of I.P.C and exclusively triable by court of sessions. Considering the above facts, I am of the view that there is sufficient material against them on the case record and as such, prima facie case is made out against the accused persons namely Bhola Rana, Reshmi Devi, Mahendra Rana, Sunita Devi and Gudia Devi for further proceeding in this case. Since, the cognizance of the offence u/s 306 of I.P.C has already been taken in the original file, hence there is no need to take fresh cognizance. Accordingly, their case is committed in the court of sessions and accused persons are directed to appear before the sessions court on 22.04.2015.” 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in this criminal revision petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed qua the surviving petitioners. 18. Interim order dated 04.11.2015 stands vacated. The trial Court shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.