ORDER : 1. The present Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved from the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 76/2017 (Shanti Lal vs. State and Another) whereby, the order dated 15.11.2016 taking cognizance and framing of charge under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC passed by the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 377/2016 was confirmed. 2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on the basis of the written report submitted by complainant Smt. Alka W/o Shanti Lal, an FIR No. 145/2016 was registered at the Police Station Mahila (West), Jodhpur Metro and after investigation, a charge sheet against the present petitioner was filed under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 R. Cr. D. 587 (SC) and Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana, 2014 AIR SCW 2085 submitted that a simple and without dowry marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 was performed on the principles of ‘Arya-Samaj’ but a dispute between them have arisen as respondent No. 2 wanted to live separately from her in-laws whereas, the petitioner agreed to live separately in the same town wherein his old aged parents are residing. He further submits that the marriage was performed without actual exchange of gifts as no dowry articles were ever offered or handed over to the petitioner during marriage by his in-laws. He further submitted that the statements of complainant and her relatives indicate that not a single incident of cruelty was alleged against the petitioner and his family whereas everyone admitted that respondent No. 2 wanted to reside separately from her in-laws. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that any act of cruelty must be such a nature which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. He further submitted that the language under Section 498-A IPC prescribed by the Legislature indicates that unless there are incidents of cruelty, which are sufficient to drag wife to commit suicide or to take such steps which are sufficient for driving her to commit suicide comes under the definition of cruelty. He further submitted that the language under Section 498-A IPC prescribed by the Legislature indicates that unless there are incidents of cruelty, which are sufficient to drag wife to commit suicide or to take such steps which are sufficient for driving her to commit suicide comes under the definition of cruelty. He submitted that herein there is not a single iota of evidence to connect the present petitioner with alleged crime of cruelty and at the time of marriage also, no ‘stridhan’ was ever entrusted to the petitioner therefore, no offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC is made out against him. He further submitted that police after investigation, filed a charge sheet on dated 15.11.2016 and the order passed by the learned trial Court indicates that a blank printed proforma was used in mechanical manner without application of mind. The proforma further indicates that name of accused and the offence charged are also not mentioned in it. 5. Further, he submitted that to cover up the mistakes committed by the Court, a detailed order dated 18.01.2017 i.e. on the next date of hearing was passed by the learned trial Court wherein it was mentioned that on 15.11.2016, charge sheet under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC was filed and thereafter, after hearing on charge, the same was framed under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. He further submitted that as per record the charge was framed on 15.11.2016 whereas no such order for the framing of charge was passed by the court. He further submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in passing such after thought order. He further submitted that a divorce petition filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. He further submitted that there was no ground for taking cognizance and also no charge was made out against the petitioner even though he was forced to face the trial. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. They submitted that on 15.11.2016, after presentation of charge sheet, a copy of the same was served upon present petitioner wherein charges were framed in his presence but counsel of petitioner has not raised any objection regarding framing of charges. They further submitted that complainant in her statement has indicated that she was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry by the petitioner. They further submitted that complainant in her statement has indicated that she was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry by the petitioner. They further submitted that the correctness of allegations as made can only be ascertained during course of trial. It is submitted that a divorce petition filed by the present petitioner was also dismissed thus, at present the complainant is legally wedded wife. Further submitted that the definition of Section 498-A IPC as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable only in the cases where wife committed suicide and the husband was charged under Section 306 IPC. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 8. This Court vide order dated 23.11.2017, after noticing the proceedings dated 15.11.2016 observed that the same were drawn up absolutely in a perfunctory manner on a printed format. On the basis of this observation, an explanation of the officer concerned was sought and on consideration of the same, the explanation was accepted with a warning that the concerned officer must be more careful and cautious in future. 9. Herein, as regard to the order dated 15.11.2016 is concerned, as the same is already observed as passed in perfunctory manner on a cyclostyled proforma. On earlier occasions also this Court has noticed such type of orders were passed in past but today when the Society is in tech-age, then with the use of computer system few templates can be created for work of routine manner by trial court. No doubt about the aforesaid order sheet that the order was passed in without due care and caution which appears to be overlooked by the Magistrate concerned at the time of signature. 10. The order dated 15.11.2016 further indicates that order taking cognizance was passed against the accused but in the said order neither accused was named nor any offence was mentioned under which the case was registered. As regards to cognizance is concerned, cognizance is not defined in any of definition Clause of the Cr.P.C. but in the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2006 (1) SCC 557 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in common, the cognizance means taking note of. As regards to cognizance is concerned, cognizance is not defined in any of definition Clause of the Cr.P.C. but in the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2006 (1) SCC 557 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in common, the cognizance means taking note of. The stage of cognizance simply means an order of registration of a case in a particular offence or against particular persons, thus taking notice for factum of registration of a criminal case, the stage of cognizance is not a very important stage. As regard to criminal trial is concerned, I feel that that’s why under the Code of Criminal Procedure, no such definition of cognizance is provided. Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. only provides the manner in which cognizance of offence be taken by Magistrate which is part of Chapter “Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings.” A similar provision is also there under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of offence by the Court of Sessions. 11. As regards to proceedings adopted by learned trial Court is concerned, this Court has already observed regarding unacceptability of using printed or cyclostyled proforma by the trial Court but what is more important is that the document annexed with petition indicates that on 15.11.2016 even present petitioner was explained charge for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC but the said event was not part of order sheet. The note sheet dated 15.11.206 indicates that, the matter was fixed for arguments for charge on 18.01.2017 and on 18.01.2017, the trial Court passed a detailed order explaining that there were sufficient reasons for passing order of cognizance on 15.11.2016 and subsequently, reason for taking cognizance was substantiated. In order dated 18.01.2017 it was further mentioned by the trial Court that on 15.11.2016, arguments on charge were also heard and prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, therefore, charges under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC were framed. Thereafter, admitting the mistake so committed by the learned trial Court, matter was fixed on 08.02.2017 for recording evidence of PW-2 and 3. 12. Aforesaid process indicates that the order which was passed on 18.01.2017 was passed just to cover up, which is impermissible as the order which was supposed to be passed on 15.11.2016 was in fact not passed on 15.11.2016 itself. 12. Aforesaid process indicates that the order which was passed on 18.01.2017 was passed just to cover up, which is impermissible as the order which was supposed to be passed on 15.11.2016 was in fact not passed on 15.11.2016 itself. Thus, it is impermissible for any Magistrate Court to give reasons on subsequent date after framing the charge. 13. Offences under Section 498-A IPC and 406 IPC are triable as warrant trial case and a process for trial has been prescribed under Chapter 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sections 239-240 prescribes the procedure for consideration of police report i.e. charge sheet and also framing of charge after examination, if any or hearing the accused meaning thereby that whenever a warrant trial case is placed for trial before the learned Magistrate then, it is essential to provide opportunity of hearing to the accused before framing of charge. Opportunity of hearing means there has to be a reasoned order though reasons must not be elaborative but it must indicate application of mind in framing of charge. Herein, the cover up note sheet drawn by learned Magistrate on 18.01.2017 indicates that after realizing the mistake as committed by him, he supplemented the reasons on next date of hearing whereas all these should be part of order dated 15.11.2016. 14. Herein, for the reasons stated above, this Court cannot approve the process adopted either on 15.11.2016 or 18.01.2017, both orders indicated that on previous occasion there was carelessness but on subsequent occasion an overcautious approach was adopted. Since, it is a Misc. Petition wherein discharge from offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC was also prayed during the course of argument so now we are examining the matter on sufficiency of material for cognizance. 15. Section 498-A IPC provides for cruelty by husband or by relatives of husband. In explanation itself, the definition of cruelty is provided and it indicated that apart from driving a woman to commit suicide but also to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of woman is included and also includes harassment to coerce woman in any manner or any person related with her to meet any unlawful demand. The definition of Section 498-A is wide enough to include incidents of harassment or cruelty other than driving a woman to commit suicide. The definition of Section 498-A is wide enough to include incidents of harassment or cruelty other than driving a woman to commit suicide. It further indicates that other kind of cruelty, injury, danger and harassment are also part of cruelty whereas in both cases Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal and Mangat Ram (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation wherein husband was charged with the offence under Section 306 IPC and cruelty wherein wife was driven to commit suicide. Therefore, aforesaid principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are not applicable in the present case. 16. In the report and statements in support, it is stated that complainant’s marriage was performed on the principles of Arya-Samaj. The statements which were recorded by the police further indicates that the complainant has levelled allegations for demand of dowry and also allowed harassment for one or the other reason. Though, there is evidence on record to suggest that the complainant did not want to live with her in-laws. One of the typed written document submitted with charge sheet further indicates that for saving the matrimonial life, present petitioner made an offer to complainant to live separately from his parents. According to the petitioner the issue was that he wanted to reside separately at Sojat City but the complainant did not want to reside with him in Sojat City. The present petitioner has also filed a divorce petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution. 17. The aforesaid evidence indicated that there are certain allegations and counter allegations on record but for the purpose of framing charge, only a prima facie case is required to be seen. Herein, I do not see any reason to accept the contentions for discharge of petitioner from the alleged offences but as regards, the order dated 15.11.2016 is concerned, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside as no order to frame charge was passed by the learned trial Court on 15.11.2016. 18. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the Misc. Petition is allowed. The orders dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases) Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 377/2016 and order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Revision Petition No. 76/2017 are quashed and set aside. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the Misc. Petition is allowed. The orders dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases) Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 377/2016 and order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Revision Petition No. 76/2017 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for framing charges afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.