JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 12 and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1. 2. In this petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 26.02.2019, passed by the learned Special Court, Nagaon in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 48/2018, registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act read with Sections 366/376 of IPC. 3. It is to be noted herein that vide impugned order the learned Court below has accepted the final report and refused to take cognizance against the FIR named accused persons except accused Dipankar Das @ Deha, in spite of the petition filed by the petitioner. 4. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “On 16.08.2017, Smti. Barnali Mahanta (actual name withheld) lodged an FIR against -(1) Dipankar Das (2) Vikramjit Dey (3) Rajkumar Das (4) Dipak Das (5) Rajib Das (6) Benu Das (7) Putuli Das (8) Rajshree Das (9) Pompi Das (10) Rajkumar Das (11) Dipika Das (12) Rabi Das of Dimaruguri, under Nagaon PS, alleging interalia amongst others that on 15.08.2017, at about 6/7 pm, while she was proceeding to a shop to purchase books then the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came in a car at Dimaruguir Pakka bridge and forcefully taken her to their residence saying that his mother is suffering from illness and she called her. Then having arrived at the residence of the accused, she found the mother of the accused is not suffering from any diseases or ailment and then she wanted to come back and then Benumai Das, mother of the accused forced her to stay at night. Thereafter, she was offered a cup of tea and whenever she consumed the same, she felt unconscious as some intoxicated medicine were mixed with the same. Thereafter, she felt pain over her body and opening her eyes; she found accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 committing raped upon her. She could not resist as she was feeling very weak and thereafter, accused Nos. Thereafter, she felt pain over her body and opening her eyes; she found accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 committing raped upon her. She could not resist as she was feeling very weak and thereafter, accused Nos. 4 and 5 also wanted to commit rape upon her then in the next morning, she felt pain all over her body and wished to go home, but the accused Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 did not allow her to go and forced her to take bath. But somehow she managed to escape and reached home and thereafter she lodged FIR. Upon the said FIR, Nagaon PS Case No. 2212/2017, under Sections 143/341/342/328 IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act has been registered and endorsed SI Raji Irsad to investigate the case.” 5. The I.O then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, and got the victim examined by Doctor and collect the report and also got the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 CrPC in the Court and arrested the accused Dipankar Das@ Deha and forwarded him to the Court and on completion of investigation, the I.O laid chargesheet against accused Dipankar Das@ Deha to stand trial under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The I.O., also having found no sufficient evidence against co-accused Vikramjit Dey, Rajkumar Das, Dipak Das, Kashiram Das, Rajib Das, Benu Das, Putuli Das, Rajshree Das, Pompi Das, Rajkumar Das, Dipika Das, Rabi Das prayed for exempting them from the charge of the case. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed one petition, No. 1761/2018, against discharging the rest of the accused by the I.O and thereafter, vide order dated 25.06.2018, upon the charge sheet submitted by the I.O., the learned Special Judge, Nagaon has taken cognizance under Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the accused Dipankar Das and fixed 09.07.2018 for hearing on the petition filed by the petitioner. 6. 6. Thereafter, vide impugned Order dated 26.02.2019, the learned Court below held that from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it becomes clear that she has implicated accused Bikramjit, Rajkumar along with Dipankar Das, who were allegedly committing of sexual intercourse with her on the relevant night of the occurrence and that the Court has ample power under Section 319(1) of the CrPC to take cognizance of any offence against the person who has not been named in the charge sheet, if during inquiry or trial there appears evidence against such person to be involved in the occurrence and that in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State, reported in (2014) 2 SCC (CRL) 86 it has been observed that it is the duty of the Court to do justice by punishing the real culprit, where the investigating agency for any reason does not array any of the real culprit as an accused, the Court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. Thereafter, the learned Court below held that during recording of evidence of the complainant of the victim, the Court may exercise power under Section 319 CrPC to bring any other accused not named in the charge sheet/ final report and thereafter, reject the petition. 7. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on the ground that - (i) the learned Court below had committed error in law as well as in facts by accepting the final report/closure report filed by the investigating officer accepting the prayer of the investigating officer regarding trial of private respondents, who were not sent up for trial. (ii) the learned Court below erred in law as well as in facts by not taking cognizance against the private respondents in spite of a prima facie case being made out against them. (iii) the learned Court below has not issued any formal notice while accepting the final report filed by the I.O and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner while accepting the final report against the private respondents, despite of the name of some of the accused reflected in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. (iv) the learned Court below had failed to appreciate the facts mentioned in the FIR dated 16.08.2017, wherein she has specifically mentioned about the involvement of private respondents. (iv) the learned Court below had failed to appreciate the facts mentioned in the FIR dated 16.08.2017, wherein she has specifically mentioned about the involvement of private respondents. (v) the learned Court below had failed to appreciate the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon while rejecting the pre-arrest bail application, while passing the impugned Order dated 26.02.2019. (vi) the learned Court below had failed to appreciate the medical opinion of the Doctor dated 14.12.2017. (vii) the learned Court below had also failed to appreciate the facts that the IO has examined the near relatives of the accused as witness herein this case and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 8. Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Order, dated 26.02.2019, suffers from manifest illegality and non application of mind and that the statement of the victim clearly reveals involvement of accused namely, Vikramjit Dey, Rajkumar Das, Dipak Das, Rajib Kumar Das, and Dipankar Das and the allegation so made in her statement is in conformity with the allegation made in the FIR and also the learned Court below also failed to take into account the statement and took cognizance against the accused Dipankar Das only and not sent up the other accused for the reason best known to him. 9. Mr. Ganguly also refers one case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 443/2022 arising out of Special Leave Petition to Appeal (Crl. No. 8447/2015) and submits that the learned Court below while passing the impugned Order has failed to follow the mandate of law laid down in Section 173 of the CrPC and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same and remand the matter to the learned Court below to consider the matter afresh after hearing the learned counsels of both the parties. 10. On the other hand, Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality and it requires no interference of this Court and that the learned Court below has ample power to proceed against the private respondents who had not being sent up for trial by the I.O. Mr. Biswas also referred one case of Allahabad High Court in Punit Yadav Vs. Biswas also referred one case of Allahabad High Court in Punit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Criminal Revision No. 987/2021 and the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.95/2013, dated 08.01.2021, and another Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivshankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 130 to support his version. 11. Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that there is sufficient materials against the private respondents and the learned Court below vide impugned Order dated 26.02.2019, has failed to take into account of the same. As such, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same. 12. Having heard the submissions of the learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the impugned Order dated 26.02.2019 and also the case laws referred to by learned counsel of both sides. 13. A bare perusal of the FIR and also the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which is enclosed with the petition as Annexure No. 3, reveals not only complicity of accused Dipankar Das@ Deha, but also the complicity of private respondents Sh. Bikramjit Dey, Sh. Raj Kumar Das, Sh. Dipak Das, Sh. Rajit Das, Smti Benu Das, Smti Putuli Das, Smti Rajshree Das, Smti Pomi Das, Smti Rajkumari Das, Smti Dipika Das and Sh. Rabi Das. But, the learned Court below vide Order dated 25.06.2018 has taken cognizance against the accused Dipankar Das only under Section 4 of the POCSO Act on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. Though the petitioner has submitted one petition bearing No. 1761/2018, praying for ignoring the closure report filed by the I.O against the remaining accused persons and to take cognizance by applying his mind, yet the learned Court below, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2019, has dismissed the same on the ground that during trial, the Court can invoke the provision of Section 319 (1) CrPC to take cognizance against the private respondents and while doing so, the learned Court below has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra). It also appears that the learned Court below has observed that the statement under Section 164 CrPC of the victim girl implicated accused Vikramjit and Rajkumar along with Dipankar Das@ Deha, but in spite of the same, the learned Court below has failed to exercise the discretion to reject the final report submitted by the I.O against them. A Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another, reported in 2014 3 SCC 306 held as under:- “12. Mr. Dave submitted that it is only upon receipt of a police report and the objection there to that the Magistrate may issue summons to the Appellants under Section 204 of the code, without taking any further recourse to the other provisions relating to cognizance of offences on a complaint petition. Mr. Dave submitted that after taking cognizance upon a police report under Section 190(1)(b), the next stage would be issuance of summons under Section 204 of the Code and there are no intervening stages in the matter. Accordingly, the only course available to the Committing Magistrate, on receipt of a police report under Section 173(3) of the Code, in a Session triable case, would be to commit the case to the Court of Session, which could, thereafter, take recourse to Section 193 of the Code, since it did not have any other power to summon any other person named in column 2 of the chargesheet, without receiving fresh evidence against them. Mr. Dave submitted that the cognizance referred to in Section 193 of the Code would be not of the offence in respect of which cognizance had already been taken by the Magistrate, but cognizance of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session for trial.” 14. Thereafter, again Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State (Supra) has held as under:- “11. Section 319 Cr.P.C. as it exists today, is quoted hereunder : “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 15. Thereafter in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre, reported in 1995 SCC (1) 42, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held under:- “6. Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that as soon as investigation is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating: (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been communicated and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. 7. The purpose of the submission of the police report with the details as mentioned above, is to enable the Magistrate to satisfy himself, whether on the basis of the report and the material filed along with the police report, a case for taking cognizance has been made out or not. After applying his mind to the police report and the material submitted therewith, if the Magistrate is satisfied that cognizance of the offence is required to be taken, he shall proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After applying his mind to the police report and the material submitted therewith, if the Magistrate is satisfied that cognizance of the offence is required to be taken, he shall proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 190(1)(b) CrPC provides that a Magistrate has the power to take cognizance upon a police report of such facts as are provided therein on being satisfied that the case is a fit one for taking cognizance of the offence. Therefore, if the police report and the material filed therewith is sufficient to satisfy the Magistrate that he should take cognizance, his power is not fettered by the label which the investigating agency chooses to give to the report submitted by it under Section 173(2) CrPC. Merely, because the prosecution had filed an application, after submission of the charge-sheet, seeking permission to file "supplementary charge-sheet", it could not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance, if he was otherwise satisfied from the material placed before him along with the charge-sheet that cognizance of the offence was required to be taken. It is the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and Magistrate alone to decide whether the material placed by the prosecution with the report (charge-sheet) was sufficient to take cognizance or not. The power of the Magistrate to take cognizance cannot be controlled by the investigating agency, whose duty is only to investigate and place the facts and the evidence before the Magistrate.” 16. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in AIR 2015 SC 1923,the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “46. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 47. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 47. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect. 48. However, there has to be a proper satisfaction in this behalf which should be duly recorded by the Special Judge on the basis of material on record. No such exercise is done. In this scenario, having regard to the aforesaid aspects coupled with the legal position explained above, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order dated 19.03.2013 in its present form insofar as it relates to implicating the appellants and summoning them as accused persons. The appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2961 of 2013 and SLP (Crl.) No. 3161 of 2013 filed by Mr. Sunil Bharti Mittal and Ravi Ruia respectively are, accordingly, allowed and order summoning these appellants is set aside. The appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3326-3327 of 2013 filed by Telecom Watchdog are dismissed.” 17. Thus, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions as discussed above that while the I.O has submitted final report under Section 173(2) CrPC, in the event of Magistrate disagreeing with the police report has two courses available, he may act on the basis of investigation as may be filed or he may, while disagreeing with the police report issued process and summon the accused. Thereafter, if on being satisfied that the case has been made out to proceed against the persons named in the column No. 2 of the report, proceed to try the said persons or if he was satisfied that a case has been made out which is triable by the Court of Sessions, he may commit the case to the Court of Sessions to proceed further in the meantime and it is also well settled that the Session Judge or the Special Judge has the same power with that of the Magistrate to proceed against the persons mentioned in column No. 2 of the charge sheet. 18. Here in this case, the learned Court below has failed to apply its mind while rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner and accepting the report of the I.O filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC in spite of being satisfied that the petitioner has implicated private respondents Vikramjit Dey, Rajkumar Das, along with Dipak Das. Moreover, the learned Court below has also failed to issue notice to the informant before acceptance of final report, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Utter Pradesh and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 27 . 19. The above being the factual as well as the legal position, this Court is of the view that the impugned Order dated 26.02.2019 suffers from manifest illegality due to non-application of mind and the same failed to stand the test of legality, propriety and correctness and requires interference of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 26.02.2019, is interfered with and the same stands set aside and quashed and the matter is remanded to the learned Court below to consider a fresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and to pass fresh order on the Police Report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. 20. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below within a period of 15 days from today. 21. In terms on the above observation, this revision petition stands disposed of.