ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the docket order dated 02.12.2021, in C.C.No.13195 of 2021, on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint on 21.06.2021, before S.R.Nagar Police Station contending that respondents 2 to 4 i.e., accused have committed atrocities on his father and looted him and further pressurized a senior citizen to transfer immovable property in their favour. The complaint further disclose that the accused persons have been extorting the cash amounts from the father of the petitioner and on the intervening night of 15/16-06-2021, the respondent No.2 and her associates have attacked, assaulted the father of the petitioner and also damaged old furniture which are antiques and are costly items. Inspite of lodging the complaint, the Police have not taken any action. 3. It is the specific contention of the de facto complainant that a notice dated 24.09.2021 was issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.R. Nagar Police Station, calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for inquiry. The petitioner’s sister by name Laiqunnisa Begum has filed a complaint under Rule 4(1) of the Telangana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2007 before the Tribunal and also filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.23897 of 2021 which was disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 including the police authorities to take action on her complaint. Pursuant to the said order, she has filed a petition on 09.10.2021 before Station House Officer, S.R.Nagar P.S. which discloses the participation of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379, 386, 403, 406, 420, 423, 426, 427, 465, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC. But the Police have failed to take action for which she was constrained to file a private complaint before III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad praying to take cognizance of the said offences and to punish respondent Nos.2 to 4 or refer the complaint to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and further direct the Police to investigate and submit a charge sheet against the accused. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1-State. 5. On perusal of the entire record, the impugned order i.e., docket order dated 02.12.2021 reads as follows:- “Heard. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1-State. 5. On perusal of the entire record, the impugned order i.e., docket order dated 02.12.2021 reads as follows:- “Heard. Gone through the record along with statement of complainant and documents filed. In view of the specific allegations leveled against the accused, prima facie case is made out. Hence, cognizance is taken under Section 506 of IPC against the accused. Issue summons to accused. Call on 30.12.2021.” 6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court examined the petitioner alone though other family members of the petitioner are also cited as witnesses and also came to a conclusion that prima facie case is made out only with regard to offence under Section 506 of IPC but not with regard to other offences, though specific material allegations are made out against the accused for the said offences. Therefore, petitioner challenged the docket order for not taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379, 386, 403, 406, 420, 423, 426, 427, 465, 468 and 471. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the prime duty of the trial Court to record the evidence of the petitioner and also other witnesses. If prima facie case is made out, then it has to dismiss the case under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court though found that prima facie case is made out, cannot take cognizance only for one section leaving other sections of law. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order and to further direct the Court below to take cognizance for all the offences, as prima facie case is made out. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no error or irregularity in the orders of the trial Court, as the material only disclose the offences under Section 506 of IPC. The trial Court has rightly taken cognizance under Section 506 of IPC. 8. On perusal of the entire complaint copy and contentions, it is evident that prima facie case is made out with regard to other sections of law also along with Section 506 of IPC. The trial Court has rightly taken cognizance under Section 506 of IPC. 8. On perusal of the entire complaint copy and contentions, it is evident that prima facie case is made out with regard to other sections of law also along with Section 506 of IPC. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to examine all the witnesses who are mentioned in the private complaint and also to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and if at all the ingredients of other sections of law are attracted, the trial Court shall take cognizance for those offences also. 9. With the above observations, the docket order dated 02.12.2021 in C.C.No.13195 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby set aside directing the Magistrate to consider the entire material on record and to pass orders afresh by taking cognizance of other offences also. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.